sassy_ghq_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value (file contents + SHA), implying a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, network behavior, failure modes, or effects. It adds limited context beyond the tool name.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and result. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

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?

Although the tool is relatively simple and has an output schema, the description lacks important context: it does not explain the role of each parameter, how to handle errors, or why a user would choose this over sibling read tools. The 0% parameter coverage and missing usage guidance leave the description incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (owner, repo, path, ref). It does not clarify what 'ref' means, whether it is optional, or how path should be formatted. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Get file contents + SHA from a repo' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (file contents + SHA), and source (a repo). It is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly compare to sassy_read_file or sassy_read_multiple.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no examples, and no mention of when to choose sassy_ghq_get over sassy_read_file or other repository-related tools. It simply states what it does.

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