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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description's 'Retrieve' matches those annotations but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what is already encoded, such as how branch details are returned or whether any special conditions apply.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, the parameter list duplicates the input schema exactly, adding bulk without new information. The 'Toolset' line provides useful grouping but is the only non-redundant extra content beyond the first sentence.

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 read-only lookup with two required scalar parameters and no nested objects, this description is adequate. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description names the target resource clearly. The word 'details' is somewhat vague, but the lack of an output schema is offset by the low complexity of the operation.

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%, and the description simply restates the same parameter names and descriptions ('Name of the pacticipant', 'Name of the branch'). It does not add extra semantic detail such as allowed formats, examples, or the relationship between the parameters.

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 a specific action ('Retrieve details') and resource ('a specific branch of a pacticipant'). It distinguishes this tool from related siblings such as contract-testing_list_branches, contract-testing_get_branch_versions, and contract-testing_delete_branch by emphasizing the singular, read-only lookup intent.

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 phrase 'specific branch of a pacticipant' implies this is the right choice when the agent has a known branch name and pacticipant name, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like list_branches or get_branch_versions. The 'Toolset: Branches and Versions' label adds mild context but does not resolve routing choices.

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