source_get_content

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'raw text content' and 'no AI processing', implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences plus a parameter list, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Although output schema exists, description already details return fields (content, title, source_type, char_count). Missing edge cases or error conditions, but for a simple retrieval tool it is fairly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It describes 'source_id: Source UUID', adding the concept of UUID to the schema type. This is minimal but sufficient for a single parameter; baseline is 3.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'raw text content of a source', and explicitly mentions no AI processing. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'notebook_query' by noting speed advantage for content export.

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?

Explicitly recommends this tool over 'notebook_query' for content export due to speed. Does not explicitly exclude other contexts or mention prerequisites, but the contrast provides clear guidance.

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