Get File Content

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the metadata pre-check (rejecting directories, oversized/binary files) and the ambiguity warning for branch names. This extends beyond the 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 well-structured with an overview, a behavioral note, and a parameter list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed, but overall good.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no enums, and an output schema (so return docs not needed), the description is complete: it covers functionality, pre-checks, parameter details, and return type. All 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It clearly explains each parameter: repo_slug, commit (with nuance about branch/tag ambiguity), path, workspace (optional), and max_bytes (with default and unit). This is thorough.

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 it gets raw text content of a file at a given commit or branch, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_*' tools which focus on other entities like commits, issues, or pull requests.

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 clear context: it pre-checks for directories, oversized files, and binary files, and warns about ambiguous branch names. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (for file content), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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