get_file_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the core functionality (retrieving file content) and mentions pagination behavior for large files, which is useful context. However, it doesn't cover other important behavioral aspects like error conditions (e.g., file not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format details.

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 perfectly sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the third offers specific guidance for edge cases (large files). Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 read operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains the what and when-to-use well, but lacks details about return values, error handling, and authentication requirements that would be helpful given the tool's complexity and absence of both annotations and output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the 'start' parameter for pagination and implying text-based file usage, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details that aren't already in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Retrieve the content'), resource ('a specific file from a Bitbucket repository'), and scope ('with pagination support'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'browse_repository' (which likely lists files) or 'get_diff' (which compares changes) by focusing on reading file contents directly.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('to read source code, configuration files, documentation, or any text-based files') and includes an explicit alternative for large files ('use start parameter to paginate'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to all sibling tools (e.g., vs. 'get_diff' for file comparisons).

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