get_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that large files are capped and explains the behavior of the two modes in detail. It does not mention auth requirements or error handling, but provides enough behavioral context for typical usage.

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 concise, using two short paragraphs and bullet points for clarity. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 output schema exists (so return values need not be detailed), the description covers purpose, all parameters, usage modes, and a behavioral caveat about capping. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning for all parameters. It thoroughly explains 'around_chunk' (negative vs. non-negative behavior), 'radius' (number of surrounding chunks), and 'file_id' (from search result). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it reads an indexed file's text by file_id from a search result. It uses specific verbs ('read') and resource ('file's text'), and distinguishes from sibling tools that search or list files.

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 explains two modes (whole text vs. chunk expansion) and when to use each, including a recommendation to prefer window mode for large files. It also mentions passing the chunk index from search results. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons with siblings.

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