List Git Branches

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds return info (branch names, current branch, commit info) which is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose pagination behavior, latency, or other traits. With annotation coverage, the description's additional behavioral context is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance and a warning. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and a large sibling set, the description covers the key usage context (how to specify repository) and mentions return format. However, it omits explanation of pagination parameters (limit/offset) and response_format choices beyond the schema. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 50% (repository and response_format have descriptions). The description adds significant semantic value for the repository parameter (accepts id or name, case-insensitive, don't invent) beyond the schema. However, limit and offset parameters are not explained. The description partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 tool lists all Git branches with metadata, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Git branches'). It implies use before switching/comparing versions, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like openl_create_project_branch. Still, the purpose is very clear and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: use to see branches before switching/comparing, pass repository id or name from openl_list_repositories(), and avoid inventing values. It advises calling the repository list tool first if needed. No explicit 'when not to use', but the guidance is sufficient and practical.

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