Get a gist

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses truncation behavior (per-file and total caps, reporting in notes), the exact meaning of a 404 (missing vs private invisible, not deleted), and warns that output may contain sensitive data. These are significant behavioral traits not encoded in annotations.

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?

Four sentences, all information-dense but none redundant: core purpose, default exclusions, truncation behavior with remediation, error semantics, and a security caveat. The description is front-loaded and avoids repeating schema-default trivia.

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-only retrieval tool with 9 parameters, the description covers the essential non-obvious behaviors: truncation, the 404 ambiguity, and sensitive-data risk. Combined with the strong schema descriptions and the presence of an output schema, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description with defaults and bounds. The description adds value by clarifying the consequence of the maxFileBytes/maxTotalBytes caps (truncation is flagged and linked to get_gist_file) and by explaining that commit history/forks are omitted unless includeCommits/includeForks are set.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('one gist') and explicitly says it includes file contents. The description differentiates from siblings by noting commit history and forks are omitted unless requested and by naming get_gist_file for truncated content, so an agent can distinguish it from list_gists, get_gist_file, list_gist_commits, and list_gist_forks.

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 clearly implies when to use get_gist_file (when file content is truncated, the notes name the call that returns the rest) and that commit history/forks require explicit flags. The sha parameter description also points to list_gist_commits. It does not explicitly enumerate all sibling alternatives, but the key routing information is present.

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