github_get_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: long files are cut and flagged `truncated`, which tells the agent results may be incomplete. It does not state what happens with binary/non-text files or whether private repos require additional auth, leaving some behavioral ground uncovered.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action comes first, followed by the truncation caveat and the alternative-tool routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description usefully covers the truncation flag that appears in output. The only gap is handling of non-text or very large/binary files, which the tool name's scope implies but does not state outright.

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 67%, with both non-obvious parameters (ref, repo) already documented in the schema including their defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a text file") and explicitly demarcates the boundary against a sibling: "For a directory use github_list_directory." An agent can distinguish this from the list/get siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it (directories → github_list_directory), which covers the most likely confusion case. It does not address other conditions such as binary files or when to prefer listing pull request files instead, but the key routing decision is stated.

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