Retrieve context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'token-budgeted' which hints at output limits, but it doesn't disclose authorization needs, rate limits, whether the tool modifies anything, or how results are returned. This is a significant gap for a tool with many sources and parameters.

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 focused sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose immediately. Every word 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 the tool's complexity (18 parameters, 10 source types, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the variety of sources, expected behaviors, return formats, or how to construct valid invocations. This one-sentence description is inadequate for the tool's actual scope.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about how parameters like source, url, repo, query, or databaseBase64 should be used. The agent has to rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for 18 parameters with unclear relationships (e.g., how provider relates to source or when token is needed).

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 tool performs retrieval ('retrieval') across multiple resource types ('files, Git state, and web pages'), which conveys the core purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like read_resource, and it omits several source types listed in the schema (e.g., github, sqlite, postgres, sentry), so it's not fully specific.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain in which scenarios to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'token-budgeted' implies a use case but is not explicit enough to count as clear context.

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