get_branch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail: the payload includes the latest commit and open PRs, and merged PRs are excluded by default unless include_merged_prs is set. It still does not mention result caps, ordering, or behavior when the branch is absent.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the parameter note. The trailing parenthetical is slightly compressed but costs nothing in length.

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 description usefully previews the return contents (latest commit, open PRs, merged toggle), which is the main thing an agent needs. Gaps remain around branch_name format and failure behavior, but for a read-only single-entity getter this is close to sufficient.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents workspace, repository, and include_merged_prs. The description adds only that include_merged_prs widens results to merged PRs, and says nothing about branch_name (e.g., slashes or default-branch handling), which the schema leaves bare. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries most of the load.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get a branch') and adds scope beyond the name: it returns the latest commit and open PRs. That distinguishes it from list_branches (plural listing) and list_branch_commits without needing the schema. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so not a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-branch detail lookup versus the plural list_branches. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g., branch must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as get_pull_request for PR-level detail.

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