bb_get_pr_file_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it fetches both branches' content in one call, which is more than a simple single-file read. 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds branch scope and intended use. Every word earns its place; no repetition or filler.

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, combined with full schema coverage, readOnly/openWorld annotations, and an output schema, provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is not explicitly routing away from diff-based siblings, but 'side-by-side review' sufficiently implies the distinction.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in structured form. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond clarifying the 'both branches' behavior, which maps to include_both. This is an acceptable baseline given the schema's completeness.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one file's content' at 'both the source and destination branches of a pull request'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diff tools like bb_get_pr_file_diff and bb_get_pr_all_file_diffs, which return diffs rather than full file contents.

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 phrase 'for side-by-side review' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when both full file versions are needed for comparison. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the dual-branch scope makes the intended use case evident.

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