getSourceCode

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, but it fails to mention any side effects, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid input (e.g., missing file or bad line range). It only states a simple read operation without deeper context.

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 sentence of five words, containing no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain the return format (e.g., plain text, array of lines), the need for a debugger connection, or error handling. It is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema; 'at line range' merely echoes the startLine/endLine parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not improve semantic understanding.

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 'Get source code at line range' clearly specifies the verb (Get), resource (source code), and scope (line range), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinguishing it from siblings like 'content' or 'console'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a debugger connection) or conditions where it should not be used. It offers no context for selection among sibling tools.

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