Get file content

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses output encoding (text inline vs binary base64), the default ref behavior, and detailed error diagnostics when the file is missing. This gives agents actionable expectations for both success and failure modes.

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?

Three targeted sentences with no filler: core operation, encoding behavior, and error behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return value format (inline vs base64) and exceptional cases. Combined with full schema parameter descriptions and readOnly/idempotent annotations, an agent has enough information to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some ref-selection context (branch/commit/tag alternatives and default behavior), but does not materially improve on the parameter docs for path, project, or maxBytes. Therefore no upgrade beyond baseline is warranted.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a file from a Git repository'), clarifies ref selection with a default branch, and is distinguishable from siblings like get_files_content and list_directory because it targets a single file's contents. This clearly separates it from the plural and directory-oriented tools.

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 conveys a clear usage context: retrieving one file's content from a repo at a chosen branch/commit/tag. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the single-file scope is unambiguous, so an agent can identify when this tool is appropriate.

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