get_file_content

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

The description discloses the behavioral trait of smart truncation for large files, which adds value beyond the raw schema. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only vaguely references 'smart truncation' without explaining specifics like response formats, binary file handling, or permission requirements. This is partial disclosure, scoring 3.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral aspect. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes value, making it exemplary in conciseness.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient for full contextual understanding. It does not explain the truncation mechanism, potential return values, error handling, or how to retrieve full content (despite full_content being a parameter). The tool's behavior remains underspecified, so completeness is low.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions truncation, which relates to parameters like line_count and full_content, but adds no specific parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 fetches file content from a repository, using the verb 'Get' and specific resource 'file content'. It includes a distinctive feature ('smart truncation for large files') that adds context. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_directory_content, the action is unique enough; a 4 is appropriate for clear verb+resource but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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, nor any exclusions or conditions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual advice. Since there is no mention of when not to use it or how it compares to other tools, the score is 2 ('no guidance').

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