github_repos_get_branch

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention any behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, or the structure of the response. For a read-only operation, basic behavioral context (e.g., 'returns branch details') is missing.

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, efficient sentence. It front-loads the purpose without extraneous words. While it may be too sparse for a complex tool, for a simple get operation it is appropriately sized and earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., branch object with name, commit sha, etc.) or any constraints. It only restates the function name, leaving an agent with minimal context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions that are merely parameter names (owner, repo, branch). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 a branch' clearly states the verb and resource, fulfilling basic purpose identification. However, it does not differentiate this tool from many sibling tools that also perform 'get' operations (e.g., github_repos_get_commit, github_repos_get_content). The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other branch-related tools or different retrieval methods. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided to help an agent decide to invoke this tool.

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