get_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns raw file content as text, which is helpful, but it does not mention potential limitations like file size, binary files, or authentication requirements. The description adds some transparency but is not thorough.

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 short, direct sentences with no redundant wording. The core action, return format, and use case are each given their own sentence, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 file-reading tool, the description covers the essential action and return format, and the schema documents parameters. However, the absence of annotations and the lack of guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g., get_readme for README files) leaves some contextual gaps.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats that the tool reads files but adds no additional meaning about parameters such as branch defaults or workspace resolution. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'a file in a repository', and specifies the return type as raw text. It implies use for source code but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_readme or browse_directory, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 phrase 'Use this to read source code files' provides an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_readme or search_code. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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