github_readme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool returns markdown content, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavior on missing README files, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The simple read operation partially compensates.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the return type, fitting within minimal length.

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?

The description is complete for a simple read tool: it states the resource and return content. While it doesn't specify default branch behavior or error handling, the simplicity and absence of an output schema make this adequate. Sibling tools are not explicitly disambiguated, but the tool's narrow scope reduces the need.

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% with both 'owner' and 'repo' having simple descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 clearly specifies the action ('Read'), the resource ('README file of a GitHub repository'), and the output ('Returns the markdown content'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool github_read_file by focusing specifically on the README file.

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 usage when the README is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over github_read_file or any other alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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