gitee_get_file_contents

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., raw content, base64, metadata), whether encoding is applied, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a read tool with multiple parameters.

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 extremely concise at three words, which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. 'Get file contents' is not structurally complete; it omits context about what the tool does beyond the name. It could benefit from a sentence clarifying scope.

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 complexity (5 parameters, numerous sibling tools, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain how the tool differs from similar ones like 'gitee_get_readme' or 'gitee_get_blob', nor does it hint at the response format, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the schema already documents what each parameter does. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (file contents), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'gitee_get_raw_file' or 'gitee_get_blob', which could also be interpreted as retrieving file contents.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar file retrieval tools among siblings, the lack of contextual clues (e.g., when to prefer this over 'gitee_get_raw_file') is a significant omission.

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