emacs_git_branch_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals nothing beyond the tool's name: no statement about which repository/buffer context it operates in, no mention of output shape, and no confirmation of read-only behavior. 'List' weakly implies a read operation, but the description adds essentially no behavioral context.

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?

A single three-word sentence with zero padding, front-loaded with the action verb. It is efficient, though the brevity approaches under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with a fully documented single parameter, the definition is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to state the operating context (current project/buffer repository) or distinguish itself from emacs_git_branch_current, leaving gaps an agent must resolve by assumption.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the 'all' parameter is fully documented as 'Include remote branches (default: false)'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('git branches'), giving an unambiguous statement of what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling emacs_git_branch_current, leaving the agent to guess which branch-listing tool to pick.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointers to alternatives. With siblings like emacs_git_branch_current and emacs_git_branch_checkout nearby, an agent gets no help choosing among them. Nothing is implied beyond the bare purpose.

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