Github List Branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds modest value by disclosing the shape of the result (head commit plus protection status), but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or the surprising idempotentHint=false for what is a pure read.

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?

Two short sentences with the core capability front-loaded, which is efficient. The second sentence is a terse convention pointer that reads more like an internal note than actionable guidance, slightly reducing its usefulness per word.

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?

Annotations and an output schema are both present, so return values and the read-only nature need not be spelled out. What remains missing is pagination guidance for a potentially long branch list and any explanation of how to use the protected filter, which is the one non-trivial parameter.

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 only 40%: per_page and protected are documented in the schema, but page, repo_owner, and repo_name carry no descriptions. The prose does not compensate for this gap, mentioning no parameter at all. repo_owner/repo_name are largely self-evident, but page and its interaction with per_page/default of 50 are left entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Lists a repository's branches") and even states the fields returned: the head commit and protection-rule coverage. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as github_list_tags, github_list_repository_tree, or github_delete_branch, so an agent still has to infer which listing tool applies.

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 only usage direction is a pointer to github_get_skill('pr-management'), which implies a workflow exists but does not say when to call this tool rather than the other branch-related tools. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites beyond the required repo identifiers, and no guidance on when filtering by protection status is appropriate.

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