getRepositoryBranchingModel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation ('Get'). It does not mention that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe any permissions, side effects, or return format. This is minimal transparency for a data retrieval tool.

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 with no wasted words. However, given the need to differentiate from similar siblings, it may be too brief, lacking necessary context. It is clear 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?

Given the existence of sibling tools that likely return different variants of branching models (e.g., effective vs. raw), the description does not specify which model is returned. Without an output schema, the agent lacks information about what data to expect, making the description incomplete for correct tool selection.

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%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters (workspace, repo_slug), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Get the branching model for a repository' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like getEffectiveRepositoryBranchingModel or getProjectBranchingModel, which have similar names and functions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getEffectiveRepositoryBranchingModel or getProjectBranchingModel. The description lacks any context about selection criteria or prerequisites.

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