GitHub Get File

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, missing authentication needs, rate limits, or error responses. The description falls short of necessary transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover error handling, file size limits, encoding, or what happens when the file does not exist. More context is needed for complete understanding.

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 50%: parameters 'ref' and 'path' have descriptions, while 'owner' and 'repo' do not. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the missing parameters (owner, repo) are self-explanatory from the tool's name and context, so a baseline score 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 states the verb 'reads', the resource 'file from a GitHub repository', and the outcome 'returns its content as text'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like github_create_issue or github_request, which perform different actions.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided, and no mention of prerequisites or context that would help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like github_request.

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