list_protected_branches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description reinforces read-only behavior and adds specific error conditions (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits) that go beyond the annotation. It does not contradict annotations, and the added error detail is valuable.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, but contains some redundancy ('read-only and does not mutate') and an off-topic group_id mention. Slightly looser than ideal but still efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, alternative, error behavior, and identifier format. Missing output schema is acceptable for a list operation. The only notable gap is the inaccurate group_id reference, which slightly detracts from completeness. Overall adequate for correct invocation.

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%, so parameters are fully documented. The description repeats the project_id format advice ('numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path') and mentions 'group_id' even though the schema has no group_id property, which is confusing. Minimal added value 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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'List protected branches in a project' with a search filter. It distinguishes itself from the single-resource get tool by explicitly contrasting collection vs. single resource inspection, matching the sibling get_protected_branch.

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?

Gives direct guidance: use when you want a collection; choose the corresponding get tool when you know the specific branch. Also instructs on required identifier format and pagination fields, which is actionable context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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