get_source_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It usefully reveals that the tool operates on persisted content and does not re-fetch the URL, but it does not mention side effects, failure modes, or any limits on the returned passages. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds useful context. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and usage context well. However, the missing parameter semantics, especially for research_id, and the lack of guidance on edge cases like an empty query make it only minimally complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It hints that 'query' relates to relevance and 'source_id' selects the persisted source, but it never mentions 'research_id' or explains how the optional query behaves when empty. This leaves important gaps for the agent.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('persisted full source content'), and the result ('a few relevant passages'). It also distinguishes itself from re-fetching the URL, making its role clear among the sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the client needs a better direct quote without re-fetching the URL,' providing a concrete trigger condition. It does not name alternative sibling tools or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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