GetEnhancementImpl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It declares '[read-only]' indicating a safe read operation, but discloses no other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. This is minimal beyond the read-only hint.

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 with the [read-only] prefix front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or wasted text.

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?

While the tool is simple (2 required params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description does not explain what the 'source code' looks like (e.g., format, multiline string) or confirm that it returns the code text. It is adequate but could be more complete for agent understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema already provide meaning for 'enhancement_name' and 'enhancement_spot'. The description adds 'by its name and enhancement spot' which largely repeats the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value 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 'retrieve', the resource 'source code of a specific enhancement implementation', and the distinguishing parameters (name and enhancement spot). It differentiates from sibling tools like GetEnhancements (which likely lists) and GetEnhancementSpot (which retrieves spot details).

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 implies usage for retrieving source code of an enhancement implementation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, no context or exclusions. It is adequate but lacks direction.

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