bb_raw_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that binary files are base64-encoded and that output is plain text. But it does not mention error behavior, encoding nuances, or what happens for large files or missing refs, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core action and return type are front-loaded, and the base64 note appears immediately afterward. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main return behavior (plain text, base64 for binary) and the use case (reading files). It does not discuss error handling or the relationship to sibling read-type tools, but for a simple raw-file fetch the essential information is present.

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 only 50%: repoSlug and projectKey have no descriptions. The description mentions 'at a ref' and 'file', aligning with existing descriptions for 'at' and 'path', but adds no meaning for the two undocumented required parameters. Since coverage is moderate and the description does not compensate, the score is below the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the raw bytes of a file at a ref') and states the return format ('plain text', with binary base64-encoded). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like bb_get_file or bb_get_file_metadata, so it does not earn a 5.

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 instruction 'Use this to read files' provides clear when-to-use context. However, there is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives such as bb_get_file or bb_get_file_metadata, so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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