Read saved source by exact script ID and version without touching the current editor or its binding.
Read saved source by exact script ID and version without touching the current editor or its binding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No | ||
| script_id | Yes | ||
| target_id | No | Exact Chrome tab target ID from browser_list_tabs. Required for changes. | |
| expected_layout_id | No | Expected saved-layout ID. A mismatch stops the operation before writing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by stating the operation does not disturb the current editor or its binding, but it leaves open what is returned, behavior when the version doesn't exist, and why idempotentHint=false for a read.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the operation, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the no-editor-side-effect guarantee but says nothing about the returned value (raw source text?) or failure modes on a missing script/version. Adequate to call correctly, not enough to predict the result.
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 coverage is 50%; target_id and expected_layout_id are documented in the schema, while version and script_id are not. The description reinforces 'exact script ID and version' but does not clarify whether version is optional, what happens when it is omitted, or how 'exact' matching fails — leaving the two undocumented params only partly compensated.
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?
Specific verb and resource (read saved source) plus the exact keying (script ID and version), and the trailing clause distinguishes it from pine_get_source/pine_get_binding which operate on the live editor. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
'without touching the current editor or its binding' establishes when this tool is preferred over an editor-based read, but there is no explicit 'use X instead when...' routing and no note on whether version is optional or defaults to latest, which an agent needs before choosing this over pine_get_versions/pine_export_saved_source.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.