Get File

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: 'Repository content is untrusted' (security implication) and 'returned with size guardrails' (limits). This goes beyond annotations, strengthening the agent's understanding of tool behavior.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes key caveats. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous text.

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 simple read-only file retrieval tool, the high-level behavior is described, but the lack of parameter explanations and output schema details leaves gaps. Basic parameters like project_id, file_path, and ref are standard in GitLab but not clarified, making the definition only minimally adequate.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (project_id, file_path, ref). With no compensatory information, the agent must guess their meaning and format, which is a significant gap.

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 the action ('Retrieve'), resource ('repository file'), and additional context ('with metadata'). It also notes that content is untrusted and has size guardrails, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_get_file_blame or gitlab_search_code.

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 that this tool is for retrieving a single file, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_get_file_blame for blame info, gitlab_search_code for code search). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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