github_get_file_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool fetches file content but does not mention how the content is returned (e.g., raw text, base64, metadata), what the default branch behavior is (though the schema has a default), or any error/authentication concerns. This is a thin description for a tool interacting with an external system.

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, focused sentence that uses exactly the words needed to convey the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no fluff, and is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, external API), the description covers only the basic purpose. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-value documentation, and the operation is a read, not a mutation. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it only marginally complete.

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 schema has a description coverage of 0%, meaning no parameter is documented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters (owner, repo, file_path, branch). The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds nothing about the required format or the role of the optional branch, which is a significant gap.

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'), the resource ('content of a specific file'), and the context ('from a GitHub repository'). While it is specific and easy to understand, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like github_list_files or github_get_repository_info, so it falls just short of 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need file content) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer (e.g., github_list_files for just filenames). There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned, so it relies on inference rather than clear direction.

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