get_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'if readable', indicating potential failure scenarios, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it is a safe read operation. The minimal disclosure leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loads the action. However, it omits crucial details needed for correct usage, making it less effective. Conciseness is not beneficial if it sacrifices essential information.

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 simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), the description should provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly. It lacks information on the return value, error cases, and how to interpret or use the 'ref'. The tool is not fully specified for autonomous use.

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 one required integer parameter 'ref' with no description. The description says 'by ref' but does not explain what 'ref' represents or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'Source of a Script/LocalScript/ModuleScript'. It specifies the action is by 'ref' and conditional on readability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_properties which fetch different data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any context that would help an agent decide between get_source and similar tools like get_by_path or get_properties.

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