list_branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: pagination via limit + cursor, the meta.nextCursor response mechanism, and the effect of the closed and favorite flags. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful operational detail beyond what the annotations convey.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then covers pagination, filtering, and the key exclusion, all in a compact and scannable form.

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 list operation with no required parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description fully covers return values, pagination, filtering behavior, and the main alternative tool. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 all parameters are already documented at a basic level. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the pagination relationship between limit and cursor, that cursor comes from a previous meta.nextCursor, and that favorite:true filters to the user's favourites, which goes beyond the schema's one-line 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List the project's branches') and goes beyond the tool name by detailing the exact return record shape. It also distinguishes itself from sibling vcs_status by explicitly stating when not to use it, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous among many similar branch/checkout tools.

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 guidance on when NOT to use the tool ('to read the current branch (use vcs_status)') and names the alternative. It also clarifies how to use filtering parameters for closed branches and favorites, giving an agent clear decision criteria without needing to inspect the schema.

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