source_get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the fallback to the loaded script when no source map is available and the guarantee that the caller is told which of the two was returned, preventing confusion between bundle and original lines. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'read' statement, though it does not touch on other traits like error handling or permissions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable fallback and disambiguation behavior in a compact way. Every phrase earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully hints at the response by explaining that the tool always indicates which of the two sources (original vs loaded) was returned. Combined with the schema's full parameter documentation, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result. Minor gaps like exact return structure or error behavior exist, but they are not critical for calling the tool.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning to path, start_line, or end_line beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies. No parameter information is missing that the description needs to compensate for.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('original pre-bundling source file via the page's source maps'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like source_get_script, which presumably returns the loaded script. The fallback clause further reinforces the difference between original and bundle content. An agent can tell this tool apart from neighboring source tools without opening their schemas.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the original pre-bundling source rather than the loaded script. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the routing decision partly to inference. The fallback note is behavioral context rather than a direct usage guideline.

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