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 only states that it "gets" information, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention that it has no side effects, nor does it describe what "detailed information" includes or any default behaviors (e.g., whether merged PRs are included by default). The only behavioral hint is the mention of associated PRs, but this is minimal.

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 is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a relevant detail about PRs. There is no redundant or filler text, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a general idea of the response (detailed branch info + associated PRs) but lacks specifics about return shape or edge cases. The explicit mention of "associated pull requests" adds value, yet the vague phrase "detailed information" leaves some uncertainty. Overall, it is minimally adequate but not 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already fully documents each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not go beyond 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 states a clear verb+resource: "Get detailed information about a branch" and adds a distinguishing detail, "including associated pull requests." This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_branches (which lists branches) and get_pull_request (which gets a single PR). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 use when a user needs branch details along with associated PRs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct guidance like "use list_branches for branch names only," so usage is only implied.

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