Get File Content Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The word 'decoded' hints at base64 decoding and 'text' hints that binary files may not be returned, which is some added context, but the description omits size limits, error behavior for missing paths, and truncation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover safety. What remains missing for a file-fetch tool is whether large or binary files are handled, which is relevant given the description's 'text content' phrasing.

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 (repo, path, ref, owner) are already documented in the schema, including the ref and owner defaults. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (decoded text content of a file in a GitHub repository), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like search_code_tool or list_repo_tree_tool, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 only implied: an agent infers it should be used when it needs the contents of a specific file. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. search_code_tool for locating content, list_repo_tree_tool for discovering paths).

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