get_file_content

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent read behavior. The description adds value by disclosing pagination support, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not discuss error handling or rate limits, which would push it to 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that uses only 12 words. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details like response format, encoding, or error scenarios. Pagination is mentioned but not fully elaborated.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The description does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 action 'Read file contents' and the resource 'from a repository', and includes a distinguishing feature 'with pagination support for large files'. This differentiates it from siblings like browse_repository or get_diff.

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 implies use for reading file contents, especially large ones, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like browse_repository or get_file_blame. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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