get_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read operation ('Retrieve') with no side effects mentioned. While the behavior is clear for a simple retrieval, it could disclose more, such as whether the operation is read-only or any potential performance implications.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second provides usage context.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose and typical use case (from search result). However, it does not mention any constraints like file size limits or error conditions, but given the simple nature, it is mostly complete.

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 50% (only 'category' described). The description does not elaborate on the 'filename' parameter, which lacks a schema description, missing an opportunity to clarify its format or origin. The description only mentions 'filename from a search result' implicitly, not directly explaining the parameter.

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 'Retrieve the full content of a specific documentation file,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_mcp_plesk_dev_docs' by explicitly stating the use case of retrieving full content when a filename is known from a search result.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this when you have a filename from a search result and need more context than what was provided in the search snippets.' This tells when to use it and implies it builds on the search tool, but does not explicitly exclude other uses or mention alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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