List Branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations—it doesn't mention return format, whether branches are local/remote, or ordering—but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.

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 a single clear sentence with zero unnecessary words. It fully fits its purpose without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, comprehensive annotations), the description is adequately complete for an agent to select and invoke it. It could optionally mention what the tool returns, but it is not necessary for a straightforward read-only list operation.

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 coverage is 100% with agent_id described as 'Agent id'. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely ties agent_id to the concept of an agent's git repo, which is already implied by the tool name.

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 'List branches in an agent's git repo' uses a specific verb (List), a clear resource (branches), and a scope qualifier (in an agent's git repo). This distinguishes it from sibling git listing tools like lyzr_git_list_commits, lyzr_git_list_prs, and lyzr_git_list_repo_files, and also from the session-level lyzr_session3_list_branches.

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 implies usage context (operating on an agent's git repository) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as session branches or other git listing tools. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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