Get @Preview source code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe/read-only. The description adds useful context by specifying that it returns 'full source code including its annotations and body,' which extends beyond the annotations and clarifies the output scope.

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?

A single sentence of 14 words that is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 read-only tool with two clearly described parameters, the description adequately covers the return value ('full source code'). However, it lacks details about error scenarios (e.g., if the preview or file is not found) and the exact format of the returned source code (e.g., as a string). With no output schema, slightly more detail would be beneficial but not critical.

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 100% as both parameters (filePath, functionName) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns the full source code of a @Preview composable, including annotations and body. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('source code of a @Preview composable'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like devilge_list_compose_previews which only list previews.

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 for examining a specific preview's source code but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., reading the file directly) or provide any exclusions. The purpose is clear, but context for selection is absent.

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