Fetch repository file

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds that the tool returns 'complete text and metadata', which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not disclose potential size limits or error handling, but the added value is solid.

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?

A single sentence that is completely front-loaded, containing all essential information without any wasted words. It is optimally concise.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what input is expected, and where that input comes from, leaving no 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, but the description enriches the parameter by specifying the source of the ID ('returned by search or search_code') and providing an example format ('code:...'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 ('fetch complete text and metadata') and the specific resource ('document ID returned by search or search_code'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search and search_code by focusing on retrieval of a single document by ID, not searching.

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 explicitly ties usage to document IDs from search or search_code, providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling list.

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