get_branch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate those. It adds specific details about what is returned (commit, protection status). However, it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., branch not found) or any rate limits, which would provide fuller transparency.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential information efficiently. It is front-loaded with the key purpose, though it could be slightly expanded to include more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple parameter set, no output schema, and the presence of annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a basic understanding. However, it lacks details about the return structure or any side effects, which would make it more 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('branch details') along with key attributes ('commit, protection status'). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_branch, delete_branch, list_branches, and get_branch_diffs.

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 states it retrieves branch details but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_branches for a list). Context from sibling names helps, but lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use limits the score.

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