Get File Content

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns 'full file content as text', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth requirements, rate limits, or handling of binary files.

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?

Three concise sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded purpose, then return format, then parameter hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 with output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, output, and key parameter. No missing context like error handling, but output schema likely handles that.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces the 'at' parameter usage but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 for high 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 'Get the raw content of a file from a repository' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bitbucket_browse' (likely shows tree/UI) by emphasizing 'raw content'.

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 implies usage with the 'at' parameter but does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs alternatives like code_search or browse. No when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.

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