Get branch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: it says it returns a Branch model and documents two error classes. However, the Raises block claiming MissingParameterError when 'branch is missing' conflicts with the schema, where only project_id is required and branch defaults to null.

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 one-line summary is front-loaded and useful, but the boilerplate '**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request' adds no information and the Args/Returns/Raises scaffolding pads the definition without filling its actual gaps.

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?

With no output schema, the Returns line is genuinely helpful, but five of seven parameters go undocumented and the required-parameter claim is wrong. The presence of page/per_page/max_pages also suggests list-like behavior that the 'specific branch' framing never explains, leaving an agent unsure how this tool actually behaves.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It names only project_id and branch (as 'e.g.' under **kwargs), omits ref, page, per_page, max_pages and api_parameters entirely, and asserts branch is mandatory when the schema marks it optional — actively misleading on the one parameter it does discuss.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve information about a specific branch in a project.' An agent can tell this is a single-branch read, but the definition never distinguishes it from the sibling list tool gitlab_get_branches or from gitlab_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over gitlab_get_branches (list) or gitlab_get_protected_branch, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.

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