ateam_github_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads from a GitHub repo, returns file content, defaults to 'main' branch, and supports a 'ref' parameter for development branches. It does not describe non-obvious behaviors like permissions or rate limits, but for a read operation the transparency is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage details and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 read tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool reads, how to specify the branch, and file path examples. No gaps identified.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the default and usage of 'ref' and providing concrete path examples, enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 states explicitly that it reads any file from a solution's GitHub repo and returns content, with concrete examples (connector source code, skill definitions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ateam_github_write or ateam_github_diff.

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 gives clear context on when to use default branch (main/prod) vs the 'dev' ref for in-progress work. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the guidance on ref usage is helpful. Missing comparison to other read tools like ateam_github_log but still informative.

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