get_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It covers the 15 MB limit, rejection of binary files with a 400 error, and the commitHash parameter accepting branch names or hashes. It does not mention other error cases (e.g., file not found) or authentication, but covers the most critical constraints.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise constraints. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 file-read tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: format, size limit, binary rejection, and commitHash flexibility. It could add details about return format or error scenarios, but it is sufficiently complete for agent selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by clarifying commitHash accepts branch names and giving an example, but this is already implied in the schema's description of the parameter. No other parameters are enhanced.

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 reads a single file's contents as plain text from a GitFlic repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_files and get_commit_files by focusing on content retrieval rather than listing.

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 usage context is clear: use this tool when you need the raw text content of one specific file. It implicitly excludes binary files and large files, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond those constraints.

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