get_file_contents

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not restate safety. It does not add behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or raw content format (e.g., base64 encoding). Minimal value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition. Optimal length for a simple read operation.

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 has 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and the description omits clarifying precedence between file_path and path or the return format. Partially complete but leaves ambiguity for an AI agent.

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%. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it says 'Path to the file or directory' but the schema already states that). Baseline 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?

Clearly states it retrieves contents of a file or directory from a GitLab project. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_repository_tree, which might serve similar directory listing purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for reading project data (e.g., get_repository_tree, get_file_blame), but the description offers no contextual selection advice.

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