Source Ingest Read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of context beyond the annotations — that the job must be "retained" for this call to work — but says nothing about failure behavior when the job has been pruned, byte-size limits, or how much data is returned.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the compressed phrasing trades brevity for clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. Still, for a tool with a sibling pair (source_ingest, source_ingest_cancel) and a "retained" precondition, the description omits enough routing and precondition detail that an agent could pick the wrong 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 description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for job_id beyond what the schema already states.

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 names two verbs ("recheck", "read") and a resource ("ingestion job", "extraction bytes"), so the general intent is discernible. However, the phrase "exact located extraction bytes" is opaque jargon, and the description never distinguishes this tool from its obvious siblings source_ingest and source_ingest_cancel, leaving the agent to guess at the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as source_ingest or source_ingest_cancel. The word "recheck" weakly implies a follow-up call after an ingestion, but the agent must infer the triggering condition entirely.

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