get_branch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds one useful behavioral note about resolving workspace via standard precedence, which is beyond the schema, but no additional context about error behavior, response format, or side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler: purpose first, then requirements, then a scoping rule. It is efficient and easy to parse, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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, the phrase 'returns details' is vague and does not specify what is returned. The read-only annotations and simple nature of the operation mitigate this, but an agent would still benefit from knowing the response shape or potential failure modes.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It states that repo and branch are required and explains how workspace is resolved, but it does not elaborate on the semantic meaning of each parameter beyond their names. This is partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('details for a specific branch'), clearly differentiating it from list_branches by emphasizing the singular target. It also signals that a branch identifier is required, so an agent can select this tool when needing a single branch's details.

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 provides a clear precondition by saying 'Requires repo and branch' and mentions workspace resolution, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as list_branches or get_repository. When-not-to-use guidance is missing, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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