list_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not reveal pagination behavior, filtering options (protected), output format, or any side effects. The schema hints at pagination via page/per_page, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. It earns its place by being direct, though it could include more useful detail without becoming bloated. No redundancy or filler is present.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to provide a complete picture. It does not mention pagination, filtering, return value structure, or when to prefer this over other list tools. The agent is left with a clear purpose but insufficient operational context.

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 60%: repo, owner, and protected have descriptions, but page and per_page do not. The tool description adds no explanation of parameters or their interplay. It doesn't compensate for the missing pagination semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to control result size or navigation.

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 'Lista las ramas de un repositorio' clearly states a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('las ramas de un repositorio'), making its function unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like list_repositories (which lists repos) and list_tags. Even though it lacks the owner/repo parameters, those are captured in the schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling list tools, some indication of context or distinction would be valuable, but none is given.

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