get_project_branch_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get a single repository branch') and adds nothing about error behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects (even though it's read-only). It doesn't mention what happens if the branch does not exist or if the project_id is invalid, leaving the agent without critical execution context.

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 a single declarative sentence with no redundancy, filler, or irrelevant detail. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the tool and front-loads the primary purpose. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 (2 params, read-only, output schema provided) and the rich schema descriptions, the description is functionally complete. It accurately conveys the tool's purpose without needing to restate schema details. However, in the context of many sibling tools, a brief note on when to use this versus listing branches could improve decision-making, though it is not strictly necessary for a basic get 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: both branch and project_id have descriptive comments ('Branch name', 'Project ID or path'). The description adds zero parameter-specific information, but since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 'Get a single repository branch' clearly states the action (get) and resource (single repository branch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_project_branches_tool (which retrieves multiple) and create/delete branch tools (mutations). The word 'single' explicitly sets it apart, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving one branch but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention list_project_branches_tool for listing all branches or note any prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough that usage is implied, but without explicit alternatives or exclusions, it only meets the baseline.

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