get_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether a directory path returns a listing or an error, whether file content is returned raw or encoded, whether large files are truncated, or what the response shape looks like — all critical for a 6-parameter retrieval tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though for a tool this broad the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

Six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only place return and edge-case behavior could be explained, and it says nothing about them. An agent can guess the invocation but cannot anticipate the result of passing a directory path or a large file.

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 every parameter (path, version, versionType, projectId, repositoryId, organizationId) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no interpretation of defaults or interactions, such as how version and versionType pair together, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get content of a file or directory from a repository'), which is enough for an agent to tell it apart from tree-listing or search siblings. It falls short of 5 because it never names the adjacent alternatives (get_repository_tree, search_code) that could plausibly be confused with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no indication of when to prefer this over get_repository_tree for browsing, or over search_code for locating a known string. The agent must infer the scope of use from the name alone.

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