getFile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals fallback mechanics ('Tries gittr bridge file-content, then a few hardcoded GRASP /raw/ hosts'), a limitation ('Not full Code-tab parity'), and recomended workflow. However, it does not detail error behavior or return value beyond implicit content.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary caveats. It is concise but slightly dense with internal jargon like '30617 clone[]', which might reduce clarity for some agents. Still, every sentence contributes.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage context, and limitations. It does not describe return format, but that is largely implicit for a file-content tool and the sibling list provides additional context.

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% with descriptive parameter details (e.g., 'Path to file (e.g., "README.md")'). The description adds little parameter-specific meaning, mainly emphasizing the 'without full clone' approach. This aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get file content without a full local clone.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the gittr bridge and GRASP hosts, and explicitly notes it is not full Code-tab parity, setting it apart from tools like bridgeListFiles.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when you need file content without a cache) and offers an explicit alternative: 'prefer bridgeListFiles after importRemoteToBridge/mirrorRepo.' It also implies limitations, but does not systematically exclude other scenarios.

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