ybiz_list_branches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or whether it returns a snapshot or streaming list. It only mentions the output fields, omitting any side effects, pagination, or data volume considerations. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely lists many records.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it is so terse that it omits necessary details about the parameter and usage. Conciseness is good, but the structure sacrifices clarity for brevity. It earns a middle score because it is not bloated, but it is under-informative.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description does not fully cover what an agent needs. It lacks explanation of the workspace parameter, any filtering or ordering behavior, and does not mention error cases or empty results. The output schema is absent, but the description does list fields, which is helpful. Still, for a tool that might be used to explore branches, the missing parameter context is a notable shortfall.

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?

The schema has one optional parameter 'workspace' (string or null, default null) with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain what 'workspace' does or how it affects the list. It might filter by workspace, but this is left to guesswork. The described fields (company-id, etc.) are return fields, not parameters, so they add no semantics about the input.

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 the resource ('branches'), and enumerates the returned fields (company-id, name, address, rubrics). This differentiates it from siblings like ybiz_get_branch or ybiz_update_branch, which imply singular or mutating operations. It could be slightly more explicit about 'all branches' but is unambiguous overall.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ybiz_get_branch (for a single branch) or ybiz_add_branch/update_branch (for mutations). The description implies it is for listing, but there is no explicit mention of when it is appropriate or how it differs from other listing tools (e.g., import/export might also list). This leaves the agent to infer usage.

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