get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (get file content) and some parameters, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, rate limits, file size limitations, error conditions, or what happens with binary files. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context needed for safe operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations and return value. Every sentence serves a purpose. The formatting with Args and Returns sections is helpful. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose with parameter context, but overall it's well-structured.

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 file retrieval tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but lacks important context: no output format details, no error handling information, no authentication requirements, and no guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The Returns section is just 'File content' without specifying format or structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section: project (Project name), path (File path relative to project root), max_lines (Maximum number of lines to return), and start_line (First line to include, 0-based). This adds significant semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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's purpose with 'Get content of a file' - a specific verb (get) and resource (file content). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_metadata (which returns metadata, not content) and list_files (which lists files, not retrieves content). However, it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions in the description text itself.

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. It doesn't mention when to use get_file versus get_file_metadata, find_text, or other file-related tools in the sibling list. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases beyond the basic function.

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