get_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry transparency. It discloses that the tool returns raw content and supports branch/tag/commit refs, but does not mention error handling, size limits, or whether binary content is encoded. The read-only nature is implied by 'get' but not explicitly stated.

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—first defines the action, second gives a concrete use case. No wasted words; the front-loaded verb 'Get' makes it immediately clear.

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 the tool's purpose, ref types, and a practical review scenario. While there is no output schema, 'raw content' sufficiently implies the response body, though it does not specify encoding or error cases—minor gaps for a simple getter.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It reaffirms 'raw content' and ref types, which are also in parameter 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 states the tool's action ('Get the raw content of a file') and specifies the ref parameter (branch, tag, commit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on pull request metadata, diffs, and comments.

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 explicitly notes it is useful for seeing full context beyond diff hunks during a review, guiding the agent to use this tool when a diff is insufficient. It does not list exclusions or alternative tools by name, but the context is clear.

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