ncloud_sourcedeploy_get_sourcecommit_branches

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description merely says 'Get', which is consistent with the annotation but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether pagination is supported, whether default branches are included, or any rate limits). There is no contradiction.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), and the description covers the basic operation. However, the lack of differentiation from similar sibling tools and absence of any additional context (e.g., which repository types apply, whether it is scoped to sourcedeploy projects) leaves some gaps. It is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, repositoryName, is described as 'Name of the SourceCommit repository'. The description text does not add any extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('list of branches in a SourceCommit repository'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcecommit_list_branches or ncloud_pipeline_list_sourcecommit_branches, which may serve similar purposes.

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 (e.g., ncloud_sourcecommit_list_branches). The description does not provide context for when this sourcedeploy-specific variant is appropriate, nor does it mention any exclusions or dependencies.

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