get_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool clones the repository, uses depth=1 for efficiency, returns the file content as a string, and returns an error message on failure. It also mentions the optional use_token authentication. It stops short of detailing cleanup, rate limits, or potential clone sizes, but the main behaviors are transparent.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, behavioral details, and Args/Returns sections. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary—the Returns section duplicates the earlier 'returns it as a string'—but every piece adds useful information and the front-loaded opening is 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?

For a simple file-fetching tool, the description is complete enough: it explains the cloning behavior, depth optimization, authentication option, and return/error behavior. It lacks an explicit note on temporary storage or cleanup, but these are peripheral. With no output schema, the return type is clearly stated.

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 no property descriptions, so the description's Args section adds essential semantics for all three parameters: repo_url is the repository URL, file_path is relative path, and use_token is optional with default True. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch the content of a single specified file from a Git repository.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_codebase (which likely retrieves the whole repository) and estimate_codebase.

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 tool's intended use case is clear: retrieve one file by cloning the repo. It provides operational details (depth=1, token auth) but does not explicitly state when to prefer get_codebase or other alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are given, but the context strongly implies the single-file use case.

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