gitea_get_branch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is retrieved (commit and protection info) but lacks details on error handling (e.g., branch not found), authentication requirements, or rate limiting.

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 core description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix serves no semantic purpose for tool selection and constitutes minor structural clutter.

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 lack of output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return content types. However, with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the description leaves significant gaps regarding error behaviors and operational constraints.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description fails to compensate by explaining any of the four parameters (site, owner, repo, branch). While the parameter names are semantically meaningful, the description adds no context about their purpose or format.

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 retrieves details of a specific branch, distinguishing it from sibling list operations like gitea_list_branches. It specifies what data is returned (latest commit, protection settings), though the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary metadata.

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?

While 'specific branch' implies this is for single-branch retrieval, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus gitea_list_branches or prerequisites like branch existence. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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