get_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return as a JSON object with commit info, but does not disclose behavior on error, permission requirements, or side effects. It offers adequate but not rich transparency.

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 structured with a usage paragraph and an Args section. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the usage guidance into 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be detailed), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It could mention error handling, but for a standard get operation it is sufficiently complete.

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, but the description explains each parameter: branch_name is required, repository and workspace are optional slugs that default to the current context. This adds good meaning beyond the schema's basic type and title.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific branch.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes well from sibling tools like list_branches (list vs get) and create_branch.

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 says 'Use this tool when you need complete details about a branch, including its latest commit information.' This provides clear usage context, but it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools for related tasks.

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