get_project_readme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves README content, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned content. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted language or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but inadequate. It does not cover parameter meaning, behavioral details like authentication or output format, or usage context compared to siblings. For a tool in a server with many sibling tools, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline score is 4, but the description adds no value beyond the schema, so it is adjusted to 3. It fails to explain what 'projectId' represents or how to obtain it, which is a missed opportunity for 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the README content of a GitHub project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('README content of a GitHub project'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'update_project_readme', which would require more specificity to score 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing a project ID, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_project' (which might return general project info) or 'update_project_readme' (for modifying the README). Without such context, users may struggle to select the correct tool.

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