get_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get details' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or error handling. The description is minimal and does not add context beyond the basic operation, leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides adequate context for a simple read operation. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return overview, but lacks behavioral details like error cases or permissions. For a tool with one parameter and output schema, this is mostly complete, though slight improvements in transparency would enhance it.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the parameter 'source_name' with an example ('e.g., "sources/github/owner/repo"'), which clarifies the expected format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by providing this semantic context, though it could be more detailed about constraints or usage.

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's purpose with 'Get details about a specific source repository,' which includes a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('source repository'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sources' beyond implying this tool retrieves details for a single source versus listing multiple sources.

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 implies usage by specifying it retrieves details for 'a specific source repository,' suggesting it should be used when details for a particular source are needed, as opposed to 'list_sources' for a list. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_session' or prerequisites such as authentication needs.

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