read_project_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait: defaulting to the default branch when no revision is given, which goes beyond the schema's literal 'main' default. However, it does not disclose the return format, error behavior, or read-only/no-side-effect nature of the call.

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?

A single 13-word sentence with zero filler; the operational core 'Read a file from a project revision' is front-loaded. Every word contributes either to the action or the key defaulting behavior.

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 tool this is minimally viable, but the absence of output schema, annotations, and any mention of siblings leaves the agent without guidance on return content or selection among many similar read-function tools. The brief description is not complete enough for reliable decision-making in a large sibling group.

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 parameter descriptions are at 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully clarifies the revision parameter by framing it as 'project revision' and mentioning default-branch fallback, but it leaves the semantics of path (e.g., repo-relative vs. absolute) and project_id wholly to inference.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('a file'), and scope ('from a project revision'), which clearly conveys the basic function. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings like read_change_file by tying the read to a project revision, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic read_file sibling, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not contrast with read_file, read_change_file, or get_file_patch, nor does it state when reading at a specific project revision is preferable to other read paths.

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