bb_get_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, and the description discloses the specific data fields included in the response. It does not cover error behavior or auth requirements, but for a simple fetch operation this is reasonably transparent.

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, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get details for one branch') and then lists the specific return fields, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a straightforward get operation with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's purpose and the data returned. However, it lacks any mention of possible error conditions (e.g., branch not found) or how 'relation to default branch' is expressed, which would make it more complete. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 only 33%, with only 'branch' documented in the schema. The description reiterates 'one branch' but provides no meaning for projectKey or repoSlug, and does not explain how the parameters relate to the resource beyond the schema already does. With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('details for one branch') and enumerates exactly what is returned: name, latest commit id and author, relation to default branch. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_list_branches, bb_create_branch, and bb_delete_branch without needing to open schemas.

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 phrase 'one branch' implies this is for fetching details about a single branch rather than listing branches, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Usage context is clear but left to inference, with no explicit routing to bb_list_branches or other siblings.

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