get_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that windows are applied server-side, the 5000-line-per-call cap, and that negative start_line triggers a tail fetch of the whole file. It omits error behavior, defaults for line_count, and auth/permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with the default behavior and the 5000-line limit front-loaded, followed by the exception and a preference hint. Dense but not wasteful; the parenthetical tail note is slightly compressed but readable.

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 7-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important fetch-mode semantics and limits. Remaining gaps (return format, error cases, line_count defaults) are minor relative to what is disclosed.

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 coverage is 71%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: the server-side nature of start_line/line_count, the 5000-line ceiling per call, and the tail semantics of negative start_line. It still doesn't clarify how line_count behaves without start_line or default values.

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+resource ('Read a file') and immediately frames the core behavioral model: windowed reads by default with a full-content escape hatch. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_directory_content or get_pull_request_diff, though it doesn't explicitly name what it is not.

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?

Gives clear guidance on mode selection ('prefer windows', use full_content or negative start_line only when the whole file is needed). It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, but the default-mode guidance is actionable.

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