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 the tool retrieves details and latest commit, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly implies non-destructive behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific branch') and adds a useful detail ('including its latest commit'). There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration—every word earns its place in conveying essential information.

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 moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'branch_name' interacts with 'latest commit' or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic value.

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 a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific branch'), including what information is retrieved ('including its latest commit'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_branches' (which lists multiple branches) and 'get_commit' (which focuses on commits rather than branches). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than 5.

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 choose 'get_branch' over 'list_branches' for branch information, or how it relates to 'get_commit' for commit details. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage entirely implied from the purpose statement.

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