fetch_content

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable operational context not in the annotations: the 1-based inclusive indexing, the hard limits (120 lines / 16,000 characters), and the dependency on revision freshness. It doesn't describe return format, but with no output schema and the function being a straightforward read, this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste, and front-loaded with the core action. The usage and limits are presented in a logical sequence.

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 complexity (a retrieval tool with specific indexing rules and limits) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context to call it correctly. It covers dependencies, parameter meaning, limits, and indexing semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains the meaning of 'path' and 'revision' (from other tools), clarifies the 1-based inclusive line indexing, and specifies limits for the requested range. This adds critical semantic meaning not present in the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a specific indexed file range'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'search_build_content' beyond directing the agent to use path/revision from it.

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?

Provides explicit when and how: 'Use path and revision from get_build or search_build_content' and 'request only what is needed.' It also states a conditional dependency: 'A changed revision requires a fresh lookup.' This is strong, actionable guidance.

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