Get File Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context beyond that (reads from 'agent's git repo') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or return format. 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, concise sentence that captures the essential purpose without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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-only tool with well-defined parameters and safety annotations, the description is adequate. It lacks explicit return format or branch behavior details, but these are either covered by the schema or not critical for basic usage. The lack of an output schema means some return context would help, but this is a minor gap.

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% and all three parameters have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('content of a file in an agent's git repo'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lyzr_git_list_repo_files (which lists file names) and lyzr_git_save_file_content (which writes content).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to retrieve file contents) without confusing it with other git operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the simple read-only nature makes this less critical.

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