github_get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning auto-decoding of base64 and the ref resolution behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the session_name parameter.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a list of arguments. Every line adds information, with no redundant content.

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 read operation with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: the purpose, key behavior (base64 decoding), and all parameters. It is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting all five parameters with clear, meaningful explanations (e.g., 'ref: Branch, tag, or commit SHA (empty = default branch)'). The example for path ('src/main.py') further enhances clarity.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get file content from a repository') and adds a key behavioral detail (auto-decodes base64). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_tree or github_search_code.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when you need file content from a repo, providing context through the Args list (owner, repo, path, ref). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the straightforward purpose, the context is sufficient.

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