get_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'raw content,' which doesn't clarify error handling, binary content concerns, authentication requirements, or return format. This is a significant gap for a file retrieval tool.

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, frictionless sentence that is easy to parse. It avoids fluff but lacks supporting context; still, conciseness is appropriate.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should at least hint at the return value. 'Raw content' implies the file content but doesn't specify encoding, error scenarios, or branch behavior. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but has gaps.

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%, with every parameter documented (projectKey, repositorySlug, path, at). The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the schema fully carries the burden, 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the raw content of a file in a repository.' It is specific about the action and resource, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like browse_files. However, 'raw content' differentiates it from listing or diff tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browse_files or get_pull_request_diff. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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