Get Protected Branch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, which adequately convey the tool's safety and idempotency. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, error states, or rate limits), but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 very short at one sentence, which is concise, but it omits useful information that would not make it overly verbose. It could be improved by adding a brief note about the parameter usage or the return value. As it stands, it is minimally adequate but not efficient in conveying essential details.

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 has no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining the return value or providing context about the parameters. It does neither. The annotations cover behavioral aspects, but the description remains incomplete for a tool with this complexity, especially considering the lack of schema documentation.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description does not explain what 'branch' or 'project_id' represent or how they affect the query. For example, it doesn't specify that 'branch' can be a specific branch name or a wildcard pattern. Without additional context, the agent cannot effectively use the parameters.

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 the tool's function: 'Get one protected branch or wildcard rule.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('protected branch'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'gitlab_list_protected_branches' (which lists multiple) and 'gitlab_get_branch' (which gets regular branches). The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gitlab_list_protected_branches' or 'gitlab_get_branch'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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