gitlab_branches_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data and the description carries a lighter burden. The description adds workflow framing (a pre-flight check) but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which would be genuinely useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the workflow hint. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus a fully documented schema cover the mechanics. The description supplies the one non-obvious thing an agent needs (why to call this before creating an MR); only pagination-as-workflow nuance is left implicit.

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%, with page, perPage, search, and project all documented inline including the path-encoding note. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List a project's branches"), which is immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools like gitlab_tags_list or gitlab_commit_list. An agent knows exactly what the tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow context (before gitlab_mr_create) and the two concrete reasons to call it: confirming the source branch exists and finding the target branch. It stops short of stating when this tool is the wrong choice versus, say, gitlab_project_get, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule.

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