get_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get information' and returns 'Branch info with latest commit details,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what specific information is included in the return. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. For a simple read tool, this is minimally adequate but could be improved with more 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 description lists the parameters ('repo_slug' and 'branch_name') and their purposes, but the schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional details. The description adds basic semantics by explaining what each parameter represents, but it doesn't provide format examples, constraints, or deeper context beyond naming them.

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 purpose with 'Get information about a specific branch,' which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('branch'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_branches' (which lists multiple branches) by focusing on a single branch, though it doesn't explicitly name this distinction.

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. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_branch' over 'list_branches' or 'get_commit' for related information, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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