ncloud_pipeline_list_sourcecommit_branches

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the purpose; it does not disclose result format, pagination, or any other traits. Since annotations cover the main behavioral aspect, the description adds little transparency.

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 extremely concise—one sentence that conveys the essential information. It is front-loaded and contains no redundancy.

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 list tool with one parameter and clear annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the specific use case (pipeline configuration). A minor improvement would be to mention that it returns a list of branch names, but this is implicit.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (repositoryName) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for the parameter, so it meets the baseline.

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 branches) and the resource (SourceCommit repository), and adds context 'for pipeline configuration', which helps differentiate from the similar sibling ncloud_sourcecommit_list_branches. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from the general branches-listing tool.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ncloud_sourcecommit_list_branches. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where it is preferred.

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