List Branches

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description is consistent with that. It adds a useful context precondition but does not disclose other behavioral details such as pagination, empty results, or error 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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the status detail and a necessary context requirement. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the description provides purpose, scope, and expected output content. It could be slightly richer about the exact branch fields returned, but the low complexity and readOnlyHint make the current description sufficient.

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%, with both specId and versionId clearly documented as GUIDs. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable since the schema already provides full semantic context.

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 a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('branches of a draft version'), and the key output detail (status: active, merged, or closed). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_branch, which targets a single 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 phrase 'Requires project context' gives an explicit precondition, and 'branches of a draft version' indicates the intended scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a top score.

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