sassy_ghq_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: base64 decoding with UTF-8 replacement, the content field being replaced by decoded_content, GitHub token requirements, and default ref behavior. This is context beyond the structured fields and contains no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then methodically adds auth, parameter semantics, decoding behavior, and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or tautology.

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 file fetch, the description covers prerequisites (token), parameter semantics, behavior (decoding), and how it relates to sibling tools. An output schema is present, so return structure does not need restating. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full semantic burden. It explains required owner, repo, path (repo-relative), and optional ref with allowed values and default behavior, covering every parameter meaningfully.

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 and resource: 'Fetches one file from a repo and returns its contents plus SHA.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by naming sassy_ghq_push as the paired write operation and sassy_gh_get_file_contents as the fuller alternative.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: read a file before pushing an updated copy, use directory-path retrieval only when a raw directory listing is desired, and use a fuller variant for explicit tree traversal options. Names the exact alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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