githubGetFileContent

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: file returns content inline, directory saves to disk and returns localPath. It discloses limits (300KB max, branch naming), input constraints (mutually exclusive params), and mode-specific behaviors. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 uses a well-organized structure with headings (<when>, <fromTool>, etc.) that front-load the main purpose and allow quick scanning. While lengthy due to necessary detail (gotchas, examples), every section adds value and the conciseness is appropriate for the complexity.

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?

The description covers all aspects for effective use: when to use, how to use (modes, params), pitfalls (gotchas), examples, and integration with siblings. It mentions prerequisites for directory mode (ENABLE_LOCAL, ENABLE_CLONE) and the file size limit. The output schema exists separately, so return values are omitted by design.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage, but the description adds value by explaining the three mutually exclusive file modes (matchString, startLine+endLine, fullContent) and the pagination parameters (charOffset, charLength) in the <gotchas> and <modes> sections, enhancing practical usage understanding.

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 tool reads a GitHub file or downloads a directory, with specific verbs ('read', 'download') and resource ('GitHub file or directory'). It distinguishes from siblings like githubSearchCode (search) and githubViewRepoStructure (structure), and the title 'GitHub File Content Fetch' reinforces the purpose.

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 <when> section provides clear contexts (e.g., read from known path, download directory). The <fromTool> and <toTool> sections guide use in conjunction with other tools. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, though the modes and gotchas imply exclusions (e.g., directory mode requires specific flags).

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