repo_list_branches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'List branches' without mentioning whether this includes local, remote, or all branches, any default remote ('origin'), or whether it is a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with parameters controlling scope.

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?

While the description is only one sentence, it is severely under-specified for a tool with three parameters and ambiguous sibling overlap. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as the brief wording fails to earn its place by adding needed context.

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 has three parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools that may overlap, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the branch scope (e.g., local vs. remote), the effect of the 'all' flag, or when to prefer this over repo_find_existing_branches. The output schema exists, but that does not outweigh the missing operational context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of them. The meaning of 'all' and 'remote' remains unclear, and the required 'workspace_id' is not contextualized. This score reflects the complete absence of parameter guidance.

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 in the repository), making the purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool repo_find_existing_branches, which may also list branches in some capacity, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as repo_find_existing_branches. The description lacks any preferred contexts, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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