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. It discloses that the tool returns branch names and last commit messages, and mentions pagination. However, it does not elaborate on sort order, pagination behavior (e.g., 0-based pages), or error conditions, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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: purpose and pagination, return content, and alternative tools. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 listing tool, the description is adequate: it states what is returned, mentions pagination, and directs to sibling tools for other use cases. No output schema exists, but the return content is explicitly described. Minor omissions like sort order or default page size are already covered by the input schema, so this feels complete enough.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only mentions pagination generically, while the schema already describes page and size with defaults and constraints. Thus, no additional value is added.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all branches of a GitFlic project with pagination.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('branches of a GitFlic project'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly pointing to get_branch for detailed info and get_default_branch for the main branch.

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 explicit alternatives: 'Use get_branch for detailed info about a specific branch, or get_default_branch to find the main branch.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus others, satisfying the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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