Get website file content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces and extends this by disclosing that symlinks, oversized files, non-text file types, and secret-containing files are refused and not returned. This gives the agent important behavioral expectations beyond the 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?

The description is two focused sentences: the first delivers the core action and scope, and the second details behavioral limitations. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only, single-file retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides enough context: what it returns, where paths are relative to, and which file categories are excluded. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'content' focus.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds useful context for 'path' by noting it is relative to the document root, but does not add significant new meaning for from_line or max_lines beyond their schema descriptions.

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?

Description states a clear, specific action: 'Get a single file's content, relative to a website's document root.' This distinguishes it from file-listing tools like hosting_listWebsiteFilesAndDirectoriesV1 and from other hosting/DNS/mail tools in the sibling list.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for retrieving one file's content, and the constraint of being relative to the document root clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when listing files or reading cron job output would be more appropriate.

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