github_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 for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get the contents of a file' and does not mention key behaviors such as response format (e.g., raw vs base64), error handling for missing files, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is a minimal disclosure with significant gaps for a GitHub API operation.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose effectively. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the response structure, potential variations (e.g., raw vs encoded content), or error scenarios. Given the tool's 4 parameters and the complexity of GitHub's contents API, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in understanding what the tool returns and how to handle edge cases.

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 provides clear descriptions for all four parameters (owner, repo, path, ref), and the description adds no additional parameter-level information. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter 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 action ('Get') and the resource ('contents of a file in a repository'), making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, though it is distinct in name and function. It is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a repository listing or commit history is needed. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusionary conditions. The description simply states what it does without any usage context.

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