get_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly states that text file contents are returned and that binary files are refused with a link, which covers the main behavioral aspects. It does not mention auth requirements or side effects, but for a read-only operation, this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences that efficiently cover purpose, usage guidance, and limitations. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and the structure is clear and direct.

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 tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it (including a hint about the sibling tool), and how it handles binary files. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Both parameters (repo and path) are fully described in the schema with examples, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific context, so it does not enhance beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: to read the contents of a single text file. It distinguishes itself from get_repo_structure by noting that it retrieves file contents rather than structure, and it specifies that binary files are refused, setting clear boundaries.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it advises using get_repo_structure first if the exact path is unknown, and it warns that binary files are not supported, redirecting users with a link. This gives clear when-to and when-not-to usage instructions.

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