Contract Testing: Get Branch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what 'details' include or any side effects. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 concise with one sentence plus a toolset label and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the parameter section is redundant with the schema, slightly reducing efficiency. Still, no unnecessary words.

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 simple retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks detail on what 'details' are returned (e.g., version info, timestamps). Since there is no output schema, this would help completeness. Overall, functional but not thorough.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description restates parameter names and types (pacticipantName, branchName) without adding extra meaning, format constraints, or examples. Under the guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve details for a specific branch of a pacticipant,' specifying the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'branch of pacticipant.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like contract-testing_list_branches (list all branches) and contract-testing_get_branch_versions (get versions for a branch), as those are separate tools.

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 mentions 'Toolset: Branches and Versions' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_branches or get_branch_versions. It lacks exclusions or context for when not to use it, though the requirement for specific branch and pacticipant names implies its use case.

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