get_file_content

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and the result is 'complete content'. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing files, folder search semantics, or partial-name matching that the schema hints at.

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 just two sentences: the first gives the core action, the second provides a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or fluf content.

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 two-parameter tool with a complete schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and use case. 'Complete content' also communicates the return value, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It misses an explicit pointer to search_files for discovering files, but that is more of a usage guideline gap.

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 input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond emphasizing retrieval 'by name', which matches the filename property, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('complete content of a specific file by name') and identifies the use case ('read full documentation'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling search_files because it is about content retrieval of a specific file, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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?

'Useful when you need to read full documentation' provides clear context for when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with sibling tools like search_files, so it stops short of a full 5.

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