gitflic_branch_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description is consistent with them. However it adds nothing behavioral beyond that — notably it never mentions the slim-vs-raw response behavior governed by the raw and fields parameters, which is the one non-obvious trait of this tool. Note idempotentHint=false on a pure read is unusual but not contradicted by the text.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than a deliberate tight summary.

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 4-parameter tool with half its schema undocumented and no output schema, the description is too thin — it never explains what a branch record contains or that raw/fields alter the returned shape. An agent would need to read the schema closely to call this correctly.

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 only 50%: raw and fields carry schema text, but name and project have no descriptions and the description supplies no additional meaning for either. "By name" only echoes the name parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented project parameter that determines which repository is queried.

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?

"Get a single branch by name" gives a specific verb (get) and resource (single branch) with the lookup key, which implicitly contrasts with gitflic_branch_list's plural scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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: nothing says when to fetch one branch versus listing branches, and no prerequisites (e.g., auth or project context required) are mentioned. The agent must infer usage entirely from the title and name.

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