repo_branch

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: only heads are exposed and local Git state must be supplied by the agent, which prevents an agent from assuming it can resolve local refs.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then two constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and 7 parameters, the description covers the important gotchas (case-sensitive names, heads-only scope, no local state). Pagination is handled by the schema's top/continuationToken descriptions, so nothing critical is left for the description to carry.

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 86%, so the schema already documents top, branch, prefix, project, repository, and continuationToken. The description's case-sensitivity note is relevant to the branch parameter, but otherwise adds little beyond the structured fields, which is the expected baseline.

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 names a specific verb pair (get/list) and resource (remote Git branch), so an agent immediately knows this reads branch data. The resource is clearly distinct from the PR/repository siblings, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from them, keeping it just short of a 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 phrasing 'get an exact branch or list branches' implies the two modes and the schema's action enum plus branch/prefix descriptions fill in the conditions. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against alternatives such as repo_repository, so usage is only implied.

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