list_protected_branches

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action, omitting details like read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination defaults, or response structure (no output schema). This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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?

One sentence is concise but under-specified. The description lacks actionable details (e.g., pagination, project requirement) that would justify its brevity. It is minimal but not well-structured for agent comprehension.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should elaborate on return values, but it does not. It also fails to mention pagination defaults (e.g., page=1, per_page=20) or that a project_id must be provided. The tool is a simple list operation, but the description is incomplete for reliable autonomous use.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond schema descriptions; it does not clarify defaults, value ranges, or usage hints for parameters like 'search' or 'page'.

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 ('protected branches'), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_branches' (all branches) and 'protect_branch' (create protection).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_branches'), no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project_id), and no exclusions or context for effective use.

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