pine_get_source

Does 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. The description usefully adds that a binding title and SHA-256 come back, but says nothing about behavior when no editor is open, whether the read targets the live buffer vs disk, or why a read tool carries idempotentHint=false.

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, zero filler, and the primary payload (the source) is front-loaded ahead of the ancillary return values.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what comes back and names the key discriminator ('current editor'). The remaining gap is failure semantics and the live-vs-saved distinction, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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%, so both optional parameters (target_id, expected_layout_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes nothing about parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('the current editor source'), plus the additional values returned (binding title, SHA-256). The word 'current' implicitly separates it from pine_get_saved_source and pine_get_binding, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, even though pine_get_saved_source and pine_get_binding sit adjacent and are easy to confuse with this one. The 'current editor' scoping implies the usage condition, so it is adequate but relies on inference.

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