ncloud_sourcecommit_list_branches

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds the specific behavioral detail that default branch info is included, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination, response structure, or any potential caveats. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 with no redundant words. It states the action, scope, and a key extra detail efficiently.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough information for a basic understanding. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and highlights the inclusion of default branch info. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting what other fields are returned, but this is not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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 covers the only parameter (repositoryName) with a clear description ('Name of the repository'). The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, as the schema already provides sufficient context. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all branches in a SourceCommit repository'). It also adds a useful detail about including default branch info, which distinguishes it from other branch-listing tools like ncloud_sourcebuild_list_branches or ncloud_pipeline_list_sourcecommit_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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or recommend other tools for related tasks, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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