get_file_contents

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

The description discloses the line-range indexing and inclusiveness behavior, which is helpful. However, with no annotations available, it does not cover other important behaviors such as read-only nature, error cases, or how repository context is resolved via parameters.

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, focused sentence conveys the core functionality without any redundant words or filler.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly, especially regarding repository identification and line range parameters.

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 0%, and the description only indirectly references line ranges without explicitly mapping to start_line/end_line or explaining path, repo, owner, and ref. It does not compensate for the missing 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 identifies the action (fetch) and resource (file contents), with a specific nuance about 1-indexed inclusive line ranges. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_code_fragment, which may also fetch file content or ranges.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like get_code_fragment or search_code. The context is implied but not stated, and there are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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