bb_get_file_content

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions pagination support and does not describe what the response looks like, how pagination works, error behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a file-content retrieval tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word adds value, and it directly communicates the primary action.

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?

Despite rich schema descriptions, the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description does not explain the return format, pagination semantics, or how filter and output_format affect results. This is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., limit, start, filter, output_format). The description adds little beyond the phrase 'pagination support', so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the content of a file from a repository', clearly identifying the tool's core function. It also mentions pagination support, which adds useful distinguishing detail. This tool is distinct from siblings like bb_get_file_history or bb_browse_repository.

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 implies when to use the tool ('get the content of a file') and hints at large-file scenarios via 'pagination support', but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when to prefer bb_get_file_history, bb_get_diff, or other related tools.

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