repo_get_branch_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling (e.g., if branch doesn't exist), rate limits, or what data is returned (e.g., branch metadata, commit details). 'Get' is ambiguous—it could imply read-only, but no explicit safety or operational context is given.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'get' returns (e.g., branch details, commit hash, permissions) or behavioral aspects like error cases. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output info, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('branchName' and 'repositoryId'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already defines the parameters well. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the action ('Get') and resource ('a branch'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'repo_list_branches_by_repo' or 'repo_list_my_branches_by_repo'. It specifies retrieval by name but lacks context about what 'get' entails (e.g., metadata vs. content).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'repo_list_branches_by_repo' for listing branches or 'repo_get_repo_by_name_or_id' for repository info. The description implies usage when a specific branch name is known, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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