gitlab_list_branches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists branches but omits critical behavioral details: whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if results are paginated, the format of returned data, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying what is being listed and for what type of entity.

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 moderate complexity (listing resources with filtering), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication needs, result format, pagination, error conditions, or how it differs from other listing tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (project_id and search). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but adds no extra value.

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 action ('List') and resource ('branches of a GitLab project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_projects' or 'gitlab_list_merge_requests', but the specificity of 'branches' provides inherent distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (like needing project access), nor does it compare with similar listing tools (e.g., 'gitlab_list_projects' for projects instead of branches). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit context.

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