get_file_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that content is retrieved, but does not clarify whether the content is raw text, base64-encoded, or how errors/rate limits are handled. For a read operation, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly more detail could be added without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details about return values, potential edge cases (e.g., nonexistent file, binary content), or any behavioral constraints. It is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement.

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% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's clarity.

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 the tool's function: 'Obtiene el contenido de un archivo específico de un repositorio' (gets the content of a specific file from a repository). It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_repository or get_commit by focusing on file 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The user must infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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