get_file_contents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation, but does not describe return format, error conditions, size limits, authentication requirements, or how directory contents are presented. The description adds little beyond the basic purpose.

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 with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately terse, though it is sparse enough that some behavioral context is missing; that shortfall is more relevant to other dimensions.

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 four optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is too minimal to fully guide correct invocation. It does not clarify when it should be preferred over related tools, how directory versus file contents are returned, or what the agent should expect from the response.

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 input parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add meaningful information about parameter interactions, like the precedence of file_path over path or the use of ref, beyond what the schema already states. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool retrieves contents of a file or directory from a GitLab project, identifying both the action and the target resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool get_repository_tree, which also handles repository structure/content retrieval.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_repository_tree or how it differs from them. The description provides no context on preferred use cases, exclusions, or fallback behavior.

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