Gitea: Get file

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read operation, so the annotation covers safety. The description does add genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotation by disclosing that content comes back Base64 encoded along with metadata — a real decoding gotcha. It omits what happens on missing paths, whether an error or empty result is returned, and size limits for large files.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the return characteristics. No filler, though the "[UNIFIED]" tag adds little for an agent.

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 five parameters at zero schema documentation and no output schema, the definition is too thin. The agent must guess ref/branch behavior and path conventions, and gets no hint that a wrong ref or path yields a distinct failure mode.

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% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it adds nothing. It never explains that 'ref' defaults to the default branch, that 'path' is repo-relative, or what 'site' identifies, leaving four required parameters semantically opaque.

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 and resource ("Get file contents from a Gitea repository") and adds the return shape. It is clearly separable from create_file/update_file/delete_file siblings by name alone, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with gitea_get_tree (directory listing) which is the nearest ambiguous 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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent how this differs from gitea_get_tree for exploring a repo, or when to prefer a raw-content fetch over listing. No preconditions such as repository visibility or authentication are mentioned.

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