get_branch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this and adds valuable behavior: "missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors." This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, the final sentence contains generic parameter/pagination guidance that is not tool-specific, adding slight noise.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description covers usage, error behavior, and return payload highlights. The only minor gap is the lack of a concrete response shape, but the description's high-level return details are sufficient without an output schema.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description's parameter sentence is generic boilerplate ("When `project_id` or `group_id` is accepted...") and adds little beyond the schema, especially since `group_id` is not even a parameter of this tool.

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?

Description begins with a specific verb and resource: "Get branch details (commit, protection status)". It also distinguishes itself from discovery tools by stating "Use this for a known resource or result; choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources."

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (known resource) and when to use alternatives (discovering multiple resources). It also adds contextual constraints like read-only behavior and error conditions, giving an agent clear routing guidance.

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