get_file_content

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 mentions 'authenticated token' but does not disclose that the GitHub API returns content as base64 encoded, nor does it mention rate limits, size limits, or error handling. The behavior is partially transparent.

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 14-word sentence that conveys the essential purpose. No redundant or excessive wording. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description lacks details on the format of returned content (base64 vs raw) and potential error conditions. For a simple read operation, it covers the basic purpose but leaves some gaps.

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 0%. The description only adds context for the 'path' parameter with the example 'README.md', but does not explain 'owner', 'repo', or 'branch' beyond their names. This leaves most parameters without semantic guidance.

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 'Get' and the resource 'content of any file' from a GitHub repository, with an example file 'README.md'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_file_content (write) and list_repositories (list), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 specifies that the tool uses an 'authenticated token', implying authentication requirement. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are different operations (listing, updating, deleting repositories), so the context is clear enough.

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