hosting_getWebsiteFileContentV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: 'Read-only; refuses symlinks, oversized files, non-text file types, and files identified as containing secrets (e.g. credential files) — none of these are returned by this endpoint.' This clearly explains what the tool does and does not return.

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 the main purpose in the first sentence and additional behavioral details in a short follow-up. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

The description covers essential context for a read operation: what it does, its read-only nature, constraints on file types and sizes, and security considerations. It fully addresses the tool's behavior, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. While the description does not elaborate on parameters, it is not required given the schema quality. 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a single file's content, relative to a website's document root.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single file's content'), and distinguishes itself from sibling listing tools by emphasizing 'single file' versus listing operations.

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 about when to use the tool: it is read-only and refuses certain file types, which helps an agent understand its appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implicit refusal cases.

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