get_file_contents

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the two possible result shapes ('decoded text content' vs 'raw metadata') and the GitHub repository source, but it does not explain when each mode applies, how binary files or large files are handled, or what errors might occur. It is not misleading, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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 straightforward file-fetch tool with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves unresolved ambiguity about what 'raw metadata' includes and how content mode vs metadata mode is selected. An agent can invoke it correctly using the schema, but richer behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, achieving 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, such as defaults for 'ref' or how 'path' should be formatted.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('decoded text content or raw metadata of a file'), which is more informative than the tool name alone. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_directory_contents or get_repository_tree, and the 'content or raw metadata' disjunction could be ambiguous.

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 use when a file's content or metadata is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so this is only implicit usage guidance.

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