get_repo_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the return dict keys and context resolution behavior. However, it lacks details on error scenarios, authentication needs, or rate limits, resulting in moderate transparency.

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 concise with a clear summary followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (covering return values) and the description's coverage of context resolution and parameter semantics, it is mostly complete. It could mention potential errors (e.g., file not found) but still provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'ref' can be a branch, commit, or tag (null=default), and that 'repository' and 'project' override context. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of parameter 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 explicitly states 'Fetch a single file's content from any branch, commit, or tag,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pr_file_contents by not being limited to pull requests.

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 explains context resolution from a cached RepositoryContext unless explicit params are provided, giving clear guidance on when to use parameters. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the purpose implicitly differentiates.

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