list_repository_branches

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description mentions 'cached' versions, which indicates that the data may be stale or local-only, providing some behavioral insight beyond the annotations (which are absent). However, it does not disclose other important traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, or whether it triggers network calls. The burden is partially met but not fully.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences and front-loads the main purpose. It avoids redundancy but the phrase 'cached versions of a repository across different branches' is slightly convoluted and could be simplified to 'list cached branches'. Still, it is compact and structured effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description reasonably explains what the tool returns (paths, strategies, metadata). It does not elaborate on error conditions, pagination, or response format, but for a simple list operation with one parameter, it covers the essential context adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has a single param repo_url with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It does not mention repo_url at all, but the parameter is self-explanatory given the tool's focus on 'repository'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, which already labels the parameter as 'Repo Url'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as listing cached branches with metadata, using the verb 'List' and specifying the resource (repository branches). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_repos (which lists repositories) and get_repo_structure (which is about structure). The phrase 'cached versions' is somewhat ambiguous but the follow-up 'cached branch' clarifies intent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the tool name implies its purpose, the description fails to provide context on when it is the appropriate choice among the many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.