git_read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'bounded' which hints at the maxBytes limit but does not elaborate on truncation or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or irrelevant details. Every word adds meaning, making it appropriately concise.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description does not clarify the meaning of 'bounded' or how the target/revision parameters interact, and schema descriptions are sparse. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves room for more explanatory detail.

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 20% (only repositoryId has a description). The description does not explain path, target, maxBytes, or revision. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the sparse schema, leaving ambiguity about defaults and constraints.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('a bounded file') and scope ('from a revision, the index, or the working tree'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_list_tree (directory listing) or git_show_commit (commit details).

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 when to use the tool (to read file content from various Git sources) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent must infer differentiation from the tool name and context.

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