list_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. However, it only states 'List branches' without noting that it is a read-only operation, requiring authentication, or indicating pagination or limits. The output schema exists but its content is not summarized.

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 6-word sentence, which is overly brief. It does not use its limited space effectively to add value beyond the tool name. The structure lacks any detail that would help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 that there are 3 parameters (2 required) and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not address any of the complexities such as input format, output structure, or usage scenarios. An agent relying on this description alone would have insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameters. 'repo', 'owner', and 'limit' are not described in terms of format, constraints, or purpose. The default value of 'limit' (20) is not mentioned, and there is no indication of what the limit applies to.

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 states 'List branches in a repository.' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'list_branches'. It adds minimal value by specifying 'in a repository', but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools that also operate on repositories (e.g., list_commits, list_issues) beyond the resource type.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context. Sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent cannot determine if this is the best tool for listing branches.

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