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 communicates a read-style lookup by code, which is useful, but it omits behavior for missing or invalid codes, authorization needs, and error handling. For a simple getter this is minimally transparent but not comprehensive.

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 eight words, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no filler or repetition of schema details. Every word 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?

For a one-parameter get-by-code tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it states the operation, resource, and key parameter semantics. It could add a note about not-found behavior or point to list_branches for discovering codes, but those are minor gaps.

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 schema provides only the parameter name, title, and minLength, with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that branch_code is a 'stable business code,' distinguishing it from an internal ID or arbitrary label. It lacks format examples, but for a single required parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get one branch') and clearly distinguishes itself from list-oriented siblings like list_branches by specifying a single object lookup. The qualifier 'by its stable business code' adds concrete selection semantics.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single branch when you already have a stable business code, but it never explicitly names an alternative such as list_branches for browsing branches. It gives no when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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