typora_get_document_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'without modifying it' is partly redundant; however the description adds real value by specifying that this returns the *saved* source from the bridge (disk state) rather than live renderer state, and by explaining the purpose of sourceHash.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the action, the constraint, and the verification purpose with minimal waste. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe the return shape, but only vaguely alludes to sourceHash. The 1,000,000-char maxChars truncation behavior and the focused-window default for targetId are left unaddressed, leaving gaps for a two-parameter read 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: targetId is documented in the schema, but maxChars is undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions sourceHash (a return artifact, not a parameter) and says nothing about truncation semantics of maxChars or the focused-window fallback for targetId, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource (read the current saved Markdown source) and names the mechanism (standalone bridge) plus a distinguishing artifact (sourceHash). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_dom or typora_snapshot that expose rendered/view state, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

It hints at the use case (prove renderer-side code did not rewrite the file via sourceHash), which implies when you'd want it, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisites, and never names a sibling alternative such as get_dom.

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