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

No annotations exist, so the description must independently convey behavior. It indicates a read-like operation (getting source) but does not explicitly state readonly or any side effects, leaving ambiguity about potential mutations or performance impacts.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, front-loading the core purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'Blade source' includes, how components/packages are presented, or any configuration. The tool's complexity is high enough to warrant more detail.

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 should add meaning for both parameters. It partially covers 'kind' by mentioning block or chart, but 'name' is left undefined. No details on accepted formats or constraints beyond the schema enum.

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 gets the full Blade source of a block or chart, along with components and packages. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from siblings like get_component which likely focuses on a single component.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_component or search_registry. There is no explicit when/when-not or context for selection.

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