get_protected_branch

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it confirms no mutation of GitLab data and enumerates error conditions (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits). This goes beyond the annotation signal.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, and each sentence earns its place. It loses a point for boilerplate phrases like 'when project_id or group_id is accepted' and 'use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented', which are not tailored to this specific tool.

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 two-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, read-only behavior, error cases, and identifier format. It does not describe the response shape, but the stated output ('access levels, force push settings') partially compensates.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents project_id and branch_name. The description adds some format guidance ('numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path'), but the 'group_id' and 'pagination fields' references are generic and not applicable to this tool's actual parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Get details of a single protected branch', and names the distinguishing content (access levels, force push settings). It clearly differentiates from the sibling list_protected_branches by emphasizing 'single' and directing discovery to list/search tools.

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 this tool: 'Use this for a known resource or result', and names the alternative: 'choose the corresponding list or search tool when you need to discover multiple resources.' This is direct, actionable routing guidance.

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