git_branch_list

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

No annotations are present, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the action. It doesn't disclose whether it lists local or remote branches, whether it requires an initialized git repository, or its safety profile (e.g., read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated).

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: 'List all git branches.' It contains no redundant words and is easily parsed, meriting a perfect score for conciseness.

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's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema—the description is mostly adequate. It could be improved by clarifying the scope (local vs. remote branches) or typical usage, but for a basic list operation, it covers the essential information.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to elaborate, yielding a baseline of 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' and resource 'git branches', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like git_branch_create or git_branch_delete. There is no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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. It only states what it does, with no mention of typical scenarios (e.g., before merging or deleting) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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