gitlab_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. It discloses the return type ('Raw file content as string') and default behavior ('defaults to default branch'), but doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with binary files. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks comprehensive disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with core purpose and return value. Each section ('Returns:', 'Use when:', 'Optional:', 'Example:', 'Related tools:') adds specific value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place in helping the agent understand the tool.

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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides good context about usage scenarios, examples, and related tools. However, without annotations or output schema, it could better address error cases or limitations. The completeness is strong but not perfect given the complexity.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the optional ref parameter defaults to default branch, which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get file content from repository') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from siblings like gitlab_list_repository_tree (browsing) and gitlab_create_commit (modifying). The examples further clarify the purpose by showing different file types.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided with 'Use when: Reading source code, configs, documentation' and 'Related tools' section that names alternatives for browsing files, modifying files, and seeing changes. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus other options.

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