Get file contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuinely valuable behavior, that a folder path returns a listing rather than an error, but says nothing about truncation with max_chars, binary files, or missing-path handling.

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 primary action and immediately followed by the one non-obvious branch. Nothing is wasted and no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say something about what is returned: truncation via max_chars (default 20,000, max 200,000), binary/large file handling, or encoding. The folder-listing behavior is covered, but return-shape behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 ref, path, owner, repo and max_chars are already documented; the description only echoes path semantics with examples. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Read one file from a repository') and grounds it with concrete path examples like 'pom.xml' and 'src/main.go'. The added note that a folder path yields a listing distinguishes it from the tree/search siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: fetch a file by path, and folder paths fall back to listing. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_repo_tree or search_code instead, so the agent must infer the boundary from sibling names.

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