bb_get_branch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention error conditions, permissions, or response format details. The content note about target commit and merge strategies adds some context but does not address behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

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 sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives a basic sense of purpose and some content details, but it doesn't cover potential response shape, usage examples, or limitations. For a simple read-only get, it's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters—it doesn't elaborate on how parameters like 'name' or 'filter' should be used. It merely references the branch subject, which is already clear from 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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Get detailed information about a specific branch' and further specifies the scope with 'including target commit and merge strategies'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_get_branches (which lists branches) by emphasizing 'specific branch'.

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 the tool is for retrieving details of a single branch, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as bb_get_branches or provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the usage context is only implicit.

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