passgage_get_branche

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It accurately indicates a read operation ('Get'), but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., not-found handling, response shape, or auth requirements). It does not contradict annotations since none are provided, but the transparency is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core operation efficiently. There is no wasted wording, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks some context. It does not mention what the response contains (the full branche object), potential error cases, or that this tool retrieves a single record versus list_branches. The misspelling of 'branche' also adds slight ambiguity.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the single 'id' parameter with a clear description ('The UUID of the branche to retrieve'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the parameter's purpose, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (get) and resource (specific branche by ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_branches, create_branche, update_branche, and delete_branche. The scope is precise: retrieving a single entity by its unique identifier.

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 specific branche when its ID is known, contrasting with list_branches for retrieving multiple. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or context such as required authentication.

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