get_source

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns source for multiple symbols, excludes line numbers, and spans files/repositories. It does not explain response format or potential limitations, but it does not contradict the annotation and discloses the most relevant behavioral trait.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage rationale following. There is minor redundancy of 'one call' appearing twice, but otherwise every phrase earns its place and there is 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, no parameter descriptions in the schema, and only a terse description, the definition omits key invocation details. The agent cannot infer how to structure the symbol objects (path, repository, stable_key, qualified_name), what context_lines does, or what response_format values are accepted. This is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and zero schema-level documentation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only implies that 'symbols' is the main input by saying 'several symbols' and gives a hint about cross-repository support. context_lines and response_format are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough information to set them correctly.

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 states that the tool returns the code of several symbols in one call, making the core purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from per-range reads by noting cross-file and cross-repository support, which helps differentiate it from the sibling get_symbol. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but the meaning is still unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit usage preference: prefer this tool over reading each range when you need multiple symbols, citing benefits like no line numbers and one call across files/repositories. It does not name particular alternative tools or state exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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