list_branches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does note the sort order ('most recently modified first on Server'), which is genuine behavioral context, but the cryptic 'on Server' qualifier is unexplained and it says nothing about read-only nature, pagination behavior, or result shape.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no padding. The parenthetical ordering hint is arguably worth keeping, though 'on Server' is vague enough to verge on noise.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials minimally. It omits any mention of pagination semantics or how branch listing relates to the sibling branch tools, leaving a real gap given the tool's role in a large PR-management suite.

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%, with limit, start, filter, workspace, and repository all self-documented, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List branches') and adds an ordering note, so an agent knows it returns a collection rather than a single branch. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_branch or list_branch_commits, but the verb choice makes the distinction reasonably 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no indication of when to prefer this over get_branch (single branch) or list_branch_commits (commits within a branch). The workspace/repository scoping it requires is only discoverable from the schema.

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