git_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior on its own. 'List local branches' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. While it doesn't explicitly state 'does not modify', the verb 'list' is unambiguous and the parenthetical 'git branch' reinforces the standard behavior.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does. The parenthetical reference to 'git branch' adds helpful context without wasted words, achieving ideal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter and an existing output schema—the description covers all necessary context. It fully explains the tool's purpose and relies on the schema for parameter details, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter repo_path with its default and description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no extra parameter information, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enhancing beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('local branches'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like git_create_branch by focusing on listing rather than creating.

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 implies usage for listing local branches but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations, but the context makes the primary use clear.

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