bb_get_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that content is returned as-is, which is useful, but it does not mention error cases, size limits, encoding, or side-effect status beyond the implied read-only nature.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action/resource, the second clarifies the return behavior. No filler 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?

The description is adequate for a simple file-read tool and covers the return shape, but it lacks guidance on sibling-tool routing and does not compensate for the undocumented projectKey/repoSlug 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 coverage is only 50%, and the description adds little beyond repeating the concepts of 'file' and 'ref'. It does not clarify projectKey or repoSlug, leaving two required parameters effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific action ('Read'), a specific resource ('file at a ref'), and clarifies scope ('full content'). The added 'text content as-is' distinguishes it from metadata or diff tools.

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 the tool is for retrieving raw file content and explicitly notes there is no wrapping, which gives some context. However, it does not mention alternatives such as bb_raw_file or bb_get_file_metadata, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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