list_branches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning pagination behavior, response shape, authentication needs, or rate limits. The docs link helps but the description itself lacks 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 a single clear sentence followed by a documentation link. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning. No redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but not fully complete. It does not mention pagination or the structure of returned branches, leaving some ambiguity. The docs link mitigates this but does not fully compensate.

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 50% (owner and repo have descriptions, page and per_page do not). The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds no information about pagination or parameter usage beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'List branches in a GitHub repository.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_branch (single branch) and list_tags (tags). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage: call this when you want to list all branches in a repository. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., get_branch for a single branch) or provide exclusions. The docs link offers external reference but no direct comparison.

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