List branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the forge-sourced view and the practical warning about trigger_pipeline behavior. It does not disclose response shape or edge cases, but the output schema and schema-level notes cover some of that.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its most relevant operational consequence front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with a detailed input schema and output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, from whose perspective, and why to call it. No missing information blocks correct invocation.

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, repo_id, and per_page each documented in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but it doesn't need to because the schema carries the burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource, 'Lists the branches of a repository,' and clarifies the view is 'as Woodpecker sees them in the forge.' This distinguishes it clearly from repository, pipeline, and pull-request oriented sibling tools.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: check branches before trigger_pipeline, which 'fails with a bare 400 on a branch that does not exist.' It doesn't state when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools, but none is needed for a simple list operation.

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