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 accurately conveys a read operation ('Get the content') and optional line range, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like what happens on file-not-found, how large files are handled, or the exact meaning of line range inclusivity (which is only in the schema). Nothing contradicts annotations.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant or fluffy content.

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 simple read tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and optional line range. However, it lacks explicit mention of the return format (e.g., raw text vs JSON) and any error/edge-case behavior, which would be helpful given there is no output schema or annotations.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond saying the line range is optional, which is already inferable from the required fields. This is baseline 3 since the description does not hamper parameter understanding.

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 (get content) and the resource (a file from a repository), and mentions an optional line range. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_file_tree (which returns tree structure) and search_file/search_code (which search for matches), though it does not explicitly contrast it with those alternatives.

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 such as search_file or list_source_files. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case without explicit when/when-not guidance.

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