List Branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, default sort order, or limits). It is neutral and adequate given annotation coverage.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure (no parameter breakdown, no examples). While brevity is good, it sacrifices completeness. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and the presence of multiple sibling list tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what branches are returned (e.g., all branches, filtered by regex/search) or how pagination works.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the 6 parameters (page, sort, regex, search, per_page, project_id). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use parameters.

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 states the action (list) and resource (repository branches), but it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like gitlab_list_issues or gitlab_list_commits. It's precise for a single tool but lacks unique context.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of required context (e.g., project_id), and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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