Get Branch

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description adds that the tool is a read operation for merge trust and rebase preview. No contradictions 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?

The description is focused and mostly concise, though phrases like 'that is the read to trust before merging' add a bit of marketing tone without much technical substance.

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?

The description covers the main outputs and optional behaviors, and the schema fully documents parameters. It omits error conditions or output schema details, but no output schema is provided and the tool's purpose is sufficiently complete.

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 100%, and the description enriches the boolean parameters by explaining what includeDiff and includeRebasePreview return. specId and branchId are clearly defined in the schema.

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 retrieves a branch with counts of endpoints, schemas, and folders, and optionally includes diff and rebase preview data. This distinguishes it from list_branches and related merge/compare tools.

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 explains when to use the diff ('read to trust before merging') and rebase preview options, and notes that project context is required. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_merge_request, but the usage hints are strong enough.

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