get_file_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return structure ('file content along with metadata like size, encoding, and a language hint') and crucial edge case handling ('Binary files are detected and reported without attempting to decode them'). It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, preventing a 5.

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 sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 describes return values (critical given no output schema), sentence 3 handles the binary file edge case. 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?

Given no output schema exists, the description appropriately explains return values and metadata structure. With 100% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description adequately covers behavioral traits. A score of 5 would require mention of error cases (e.g., file not found behavior) or authentication prerequisites.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though it frames the 'project' parameter within the 'CERN GitLab repository' context. The schema already fully documents parameter formats and examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') with a clear resource ('content of a specific file') and scope ('CERN GitLab repository'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_project_files (directory listing) and search_code (search functionality) by specifying this retrieves content of a specific, identified file.

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 clear context about what the tool does ('specific file'), implying it should not be used for directory listings (where list_project_files would apply). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives (e.g., it doesn't clarify relationship to get_project_readme for README files).

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