source_get_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reads the 'actually loaded' source (not the file), and returned lines are numbered consistently with breakpoint quoting. This is enough for a simple read operation.

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 focused sentences that front-load the core purpose and the most important behavioral guarantee (line numbers match breakpoints). Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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, 4-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers selection, line range, and return-values behavior concisely. It could additionally clarify behavior when both script_id and url are provided, and what happens with no matches, but nothing essential is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description broadly maps scriptId/URL substring/line range to the parameters, but adds only minimal semantic value beyond the schema's existing per-parameter 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?

States a precise verb ('Read'), the resource ('source Chrome actually loaded'), and the selection methods (scriptId or URL substring, optional line range). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like source_list_scripts and source_get_file.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool: to read the actual loaded script source rather than what's on disk, and you can identify it by scriptId or URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the usage scenario is unambiguous.

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