list_branches

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

The description discloses only the basic action of listing branches. It does not mention pagination behavior, auth requirements, return format, or other behavioral traits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to add meaningful transparency beyond the name.

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, front-loaded sentence that is indeed concise. However, it is more under-specified than appropriately concise, omitting necessary context that would justify its brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the minimal description is insufficient. It lacks information about return values, pagination, and parameter usage, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 of the four parameters (owner, repo, page, per_page). It adds no meaning beyond what the parameter names themselves imply, failing to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 tool lists branches in a repository, specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'branches', and the scope 'in a repository'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, the resource itself is distinct enough for basic identification.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_commits or list_tags, nor does it cover prerequisites or context for when this is the right choice.

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