wafeq_branches_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP method/path and a redundant 'READ-ONLY' marker; it does not disclose pagination behavior (defaults, limits) or any filtering capability. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but adds little beyond them.

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 definition is short and front-loaded with a compact summary line (🟢 READ-ONLY · Branches · GET /branches/). However, 'List branches' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of branches' restate the same idea, so two of the three sentences are redundant with each other and with the title annotation — not 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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, little is missing. The only gap is behavioral detail such as default page size, result ordering, or response shape, which is minor at this complexity level.

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% — both page and page_size have their own descriptions covering their meaning. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies; description and schema are consistent.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List branches', 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of branches') and pins the HTTP endpoint (GET /branches/), so an agent can identify it as the collection-read operation for branches. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling wafeq_branches_retrieve tool, though the 'list vs retrieve' naming and the collection endpoint make the distinction inferable.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided — the description never says 'use this to fetch all branches' or contrasts it with wafeq_branches_retrieve for a single branch or wafeq_branches_create to add one. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the collection endpoint, which fits 'implied usage' but not explicit guidance.

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