get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to: nothing about binary files, very large files or truncation, encoding, errors on missing paths, or whether line ranges are inclusive. The only behavioral hint is the parenthetical about an optional line range, which the schema already implies.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is the right instinct. The brevity crosses into under-specification, but structurally there is nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations and zero schema coverage on a 3-parameter mutation-free read tool, the description should carry line-range semantics and file-handling caveats. It leaves both an agent and the parameter docs guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely gestures at 'path' and 'line range'. It does not explain that start_line defaults to 1, that end_line defaults to 0, or what end_line=0 means (unbounded?), leaving the most confusing parameter behavior undocumented in both places.

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 repository file) plus the optional line-range mode, which is enough to distinguish it from list_files or search_code at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over search_code (to find content) or list_files (to discover paths), and no note on preconditions such as the file needing to exist or being excluded from the repo. The reader must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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