Read a file as the pull request leaves it

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reads at the source commit, but it does not disclose truncation behavior via max_chars, error conditions, or return format. Minimal additional behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 schema covers parameters and the annotation covers safety, the description provides sufficient context for selection. However, the claim of reading a 'whole file' is slightly misleading because max_chars defaults to 50000 and can truncate; the description does not mention this or the return behavior, and there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool reads a whole file at the pull request's source commit, distinguishing it from diff tools that show changed lines only. The verb 'Read' and resource 'whole file at the pull request's source commit' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with diff output and gives a concrete condition: 'when a hunk cannot be judged on its own.' This directly tells the agent when to use get_file versus get_diff, which is a sibling tool.

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