has_branch

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type (an object indicating existence with details) but does not mention that the tool is read-only, safe, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description adds some value but lacks full 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 repeats the same idea in two sentences ('Check if a specified branch exists...' and 'Check if a specific branch exists...'), which is redundant. It could be more concise by merging into one sentence while keeping the args/return section.

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 existence-check tool with an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return type. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but these may be implied by the output schema.

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 0%, but the description explains the 'branch' parameter as 'Name of the branch to check for existence', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. This compensates well for the schema gap.

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 tool's verb ('Check if exists') and resource ('branch'), and explicitly distinguishes existence checking from sibling tools like create_branch, delete_branch, or get_branches, which have different purposes.

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 for existence checks, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_branches (which lists all branches) or has_table (for tables). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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