git_read_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so safety is well covered. The description adds 'bounded' and 'at a revision,' but these are also encoded in the schema (maxBytes, revision). It does not disclose behavior for oversized files, error conditions, or path semantics, providing only marginal value beyond 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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and contains zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 tool with 4 parameters and low schema coverage, the one-sentence description lacks essential context: parameter usage, edge cases (e.g., maxBytes overflow), and selection guidance. Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves significant gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 25%, with only repositoryId documented. The description adds no meaning for path, revision, or maxBytes beyond the word 'bounded,' which does not compensate for the missing parameter details. This leaves the agent to guess critical parameter semantics.

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 resource ('bounded file blob at a revision'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling git tools like git_log or git_diff. It unambiguously conveys the tool's core action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling git tools, it does not explain how to choose between git_read_file and git_grep, git_list_tree, or git_show_commit. This leaves the agent without selection criteria.

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