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. 'List' implies a read, but the description does not confirm read-only/non-destructive behavior, say what happens for an unknown project, or mention ordering or pagination of branches.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. Its brevity is efficient, though part of the gap is under-specification rather than concision.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the sentence does convey roughly what is returned (branch names plus head tokens). However, project identifier format and failure behavior are missing, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for the single 'project' parameter, and the description only says 'a project's' — it never clarifies whether this is a project ID, slug, or name, nor the required format. It adds almost no meaning beyond the bare schema title.

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 (list) and resource (branch names and head tokens) scoped to a project, so the agent knows the payload shape. It does not differentiate from the sibling 'branch' tool, so an agent must guess whether 'branch' creates/reads a single branch versus this listing call.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as 'branch' (single branch) or 'history' (commits on a branch). The agent must infer selection purely from the one-word name contrast.

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