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 does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, sorting, or potential errors. The verb 'list' implicitly suggests a read operation, but no explicit behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 highly concise, with one clear sentence and a brief args list. Every word adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description lacks context about the meaning of 'slug' values, whether parameters are required despite defaults, and potential edge cases. It is minimally viable but leaves room for confusion.

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%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section adds meaning by defining workspace as 'Workspace slug' and repo as 'Repository slug', which clarifies what each parameter represents. However, it does not elaborate on optionality or defaults, leaving some gaps.

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 and resource: 'List branches in a repository.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repos and list_pull_requests by specifying the resource type (branches) and the scope (repository). The verb 'list' is specific and unambiguous.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The description simply states the function without explaining when it is appropriate to call it or exclusions.

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