Github Get Repository File

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavior: windowed reads, bytes_total representing the whole file, next_offset for continuation, and the guarantee that a partial read is not mistaken for the full file. This is meaningful beyond what the annotations alone communicate.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core behavior in the first sentence and the directory exclusion immediately after. The references to '#409' and 'github_get_skill('pr-analysis')' are terse and slightly cryptic, but they do not add bloat.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it still highlights the key continuation semantics (bytes_total and next_offset) and provides a routing rule for directories plus a workflow convention. The brief '#409' reference is the only noticeably under-specified element.

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 already documents ref, path, limit, and offset clearly, and the description reinforces the limit/offset windowing concept. However, repo_owner and repo_name have no schema descriptions and the description does not clarify them, so at 67% schema coverage the description does not fully compensate for the 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 states a specific operation — reading one file from a repository at a ref — and distinguishes it from directory handling by explicitly routing directories to github_list_repository_tree. This clears up the main ambiguity against sibling tools like github_get_pr_content and github_get_pr_diff.

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 gives an explicit when-not: directories belong to github_list_repository_tree. It also points the agent to a workflow skill via github_get_skill('pr-analysis'), though it does not enumerate all alternatives or edge cases like when to prefer PR-specific content tools.

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