List Project Branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful safety context beyond those flags: it explains the two scope behaviors, the meaning of base/protected flags, and the consequences for deletion. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, scope semantics, deletion safety, merge workflow usage, and sibling differentiation. It is efficiently structured with the most important information front-loaded.

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 listing tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: what it lists, what the two scopes mean, safety flags, and how it relates to nearby merge/delete tools. The response_format parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so no additional description is needed.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the practical semantics of scope values: project scope returns branches that 'already hold the project' and are 'candidates for switching or deletion,' while repository scope is for discovering otherBranch values before merge operations. This adds decision-relevant meaning beyond the raw enum descriptions.

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 branch metadata in the repository that hosts a project, including repository base and protected flags.' It also explicitly differentiates from openl_list_branches by calling this tool 'project-aware and returns safety metadata,' so an agent can distinguish it from siblings even before comparing schemas.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use repository scope to 'discover otherBranch values before openl_check_project_merge or openl_merge_project_branches,' and inspect flags before deletion because the base branch cannot be deleted while protected branches require force and confirmation. It also contrasts with openl_list_branches, making the choice between tools clear.

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