anamnesis_fetch_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals useful behavior — that the returned text is the raw chunk from the file at the registered line range and that the intended follow-up is create_memory — but it says nothing about permissions, whether fetching is side-effect free, or handling of invalid source IDs.

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?

Three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, followed by the return payload and the next-step directive. No filler, though the workflow sentence is somewhat tangential to defining the tool itself.

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 needn't be spelled out, yet the description still characterizes the content helpfully. For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description covers what it does, what comes back, and the intended follow-up, leaving only minor gaps in IDs/permissions.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It only implies that source_id identifies a 'source chunk' and mentions the 'registered line range', adding modest meaning without explaining ID format or how a chunk ID is obtained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the raw text of a source chunk by its ID', and clarifies the return is actual conversation or plan text from a registered line range. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the siblings (recall/search) it might be confused with.

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?

Usage is only implied through the pipeline hint: read the content, then call anamnesis_create_memory to store a summary. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over anamnesis_recall or anamnesis_search, so routing is left to inference.

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