ncloud_pipeline_list_sourcecommit_branches

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—no mention of return format, pagination, scoping, or any constraints. The phrase 'for pipeline configuration' only indicates intent, not behavior.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place. It could optionally include alternative tool references, but its brevity is appropriate for a simple operation.

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?

With only one parameter, full schema coverage, and a readOnly annotation, the description is minimally sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, it doesn't explain what the response contains (e.g., branch names, metadata), and it offers no guidance on edge cases or prerequisites. It's adequate but not rich.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the sole parameter (repositoryName with a clear description). The description does not add anything beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.

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 of a SourceCommit repository), with an added purpose clause ('for pipeline configuration'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like ncloud_sourcecommit_list_branches.

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 'for pipeline configuration' phrase implies the tool is intended for pipeline setup scenarios, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related list-branch tools, nor any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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