get_file_content

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 but offers minimal information. It mentions retrieving 'full content' but doesn't specify file size limits, encoding, error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool that accesses source files, this lack of detail 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of accessing Android repositories and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'full content' entails (e.g., raw text, binary handling), potential errors, or return format, leaving critical gaps for effective tool use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters with enums and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter explanation.

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 action ('Get the full content') and resource ('source file from Android repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_android_code' or 'suggest_symbols', which might also involve file content retrieval in some contexts.

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 like 'search_android_code' or 'suggest_symbols'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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