get_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context: the default response includes open PRs only, and merged PRs are pulled in when include_merged_prs is set. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions needed, or behavior when the branch does not exist.

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 clause-dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the modifier explained inline in parentheses. Nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description does the important work of stating what is returned (branch, latest commit, open/merged PRs), which is what an agent most needs here. It stops short of failure modes or ordering guarantees.

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%, and the description's parenthetical is what actually explains what include_merged_prs toggles (merged PRs are added to the result), which the schema's bare 'Default false' does not. The undocumented branch_name parameter and the workspace/repository params get no additional meaning from the description.

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 enumerates the payload (latest commit, open PRs). It implicitly separates itself from list_branches and list_branch_commits by being a single-branch detail fetch, but it never names a sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_branches or list_branch_commits. The agent must infer the use case from the word 'Get' alone.

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