gitea_get_file

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 that content is returned Base64 encoded and that metadata is included, which is crucial behavioral context. However, it omits error handling behavior (e.g., file not found), authentication requirements, or size limitations.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences with the action front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unnecessary fluff but doesn't significantly detract from the overall brevity. No redundant information is present.

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 the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (Base64 content + metadata). However, with zero schema coverage for five parameters, the description is incomplete—it should document parameter semantics but provides none, leaving significant gaps for a tool of moderate 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), and the description fails to compensate by explaining any of the five parameters (site, owner, repo, path, ref). Critical semantics like whether 'site' is a URL, 'ref' is a branch/tag/commit, or 'path' format expectations are completely undocumented.

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 tool 'Get[s] file contents from a Gitea repository' with specific output details (Base64 encoded). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like gitea_create_file or gitea_delete_file by specifying a read operation ('Get'), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gitea_get_repository (which retrieves repository metadata rather than file contents) or versus the write operations (create/update/delete). There are no 'when to use' or prerequisite hints.

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