devops_repository_item_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal extra context beyond what the annotations provide, such as 'raw file content' and 'at a specific version.' It does not disclose additional behaviors like encoding, size limits, or error handling.

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 front-loads the action ('Get raw file content') and includes essential context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. The tool is simple with three required parameters and read-only semantics. It adequately covers the purpose and basic usage, though it could mention potential prerequisites (e.g., repository existence) and error handling.

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%, with all three parameters (repository_id, path, version) described in the input schema. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema definitions, simply restating the concept of version and path. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get raw file content for a repository path at a specific version.' It specifies the verb (Get), the resource (raw file content), and the constraints (repository path, specific version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like devops_get_item_content_diff, which focuses on diffs.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving raw file content at a specific version, but lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for diffs or other operations). No references to sibling tools or exclusions are provided.

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