ateam_get_connector_source

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It states a read operation ('Read') and describes the return (all files stored in mcp_store). While it doesn't detail error handling or permissions, the behavior is straightforward and non-destructive, so transparency is good 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?

The description is two sentences: first sets purpose and return, second gives usage guidance. Both sentences are valuable and concise, with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return content, and usage context. It could mention that it returns file contents or list of file names, but it gives examples ('server.js, package.json, etc.'). It is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (solution_id and connector_id) with clear examples. The description does not add any additional semantics or usage details for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('source code files of a deployed MCP connector'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying that it reads current code before patching or rewriting, which differentiates it from write-oriented siblings like ateeam_patch and ateeam_create_connector.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'Use this BEFORE patching or rewriting a connector — always read the current code first so you can make surgical fixes instead of blind full rewrites.' This provides clear context and an exclusion (not for writing or modifying).

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