get_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only outlines parameters and defaults, omitting details like return format (e.g., raw text vs. binary), size limits, error handling for missing files, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Each sentence serves a clear function without redundancy. The structure is well-organized and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Despite the absence of annotations and moderate parameter count (4), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters with defaults. Since an output schema exists, describing return values is unnecessary. However, it lacks details on file type handling and error scenarios, which slightly limits completeness.

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 0% description coverage, but the description manually explains each parameter with practical details (e.g., 'Uses default if not specified' for project, 'Optional branch name (defaults to the repository default branch)'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's empty strings.

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 'Get the content of a file from a Git repository.' This clearly identifies the action (get), resource (file content), and scope (Git repository), effectively differentiating from sibling tools like get_repository or get_commits.

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 implies usage for retrieving file content but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_wiki_page for wiki files). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided, making the guidance adequate but not detailed.

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