get_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'raw content' but does not specify the format (binary, text), size limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a file retrieval tool, this leaves important gaps.

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 concise: one sentence for the purpose followed by a clear Args list. No extraneous information, and the structure front-loads the core action.

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 tool complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description is fairly complete, covering all parameters. However, it lacks details on the output format (though an output schema is present) and behavior for large files. The missing guidance on return format or limitations prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description's Args section explains each parameter: project_key, repo_slug, path, and at (optional). This adds semantic meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. The explanation of 'at' as 'Optional branch name, tag, or commit ID (defaults to default branch)' is particularly helpful.

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 purpose: 'Get the raw content of a file from a repository.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like browse_files, find_file, and list_files, which have different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as browse_files for directory listing or search_code for searching. The usage context is implied by the parameter 'path' indicating a specific file, but no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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