bb_read_file

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys. It does not mention behavior on missing files, binary content, encoding, or which branch/commit is used for resolution, though the schema partially covers the branch parameter. There is no contradiction with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action and object clearly without redundantly restating schema fields.

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 read operation with a fully documented input schema and an existing output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is lack of routing guidance among sibling file-content tools, but the schema covers invocation details.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters meaningfully. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('read'), resource ('file'), and container ('Bitbucket repository'), so an agent immediately knows the core operation and that it is not a write or delete tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bb_get_pr_file_content, which also serves file content in a Bitbucket context.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not explain when to choose this over bb_get_pr_file_content or bb_get_pr_file_diff, leaving tool selection mostly to inference from names.

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