opencdr_library_runtime_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: what is returned (exact source document, canonical hash, observation time), the requirement to pass hash/revision onward to a separate import call, and that Fleet mode resolves through the Fleet authority while Core mode uses standalone Core. It stops short of noting rate limits, freshness/verification failure behavior, or what happens when the snapshot is stale.

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 payload and read-only preview nature are front-loaded, then the follow-on import step, then the mode note. Four short sentences with little waste, though the trailing Fleet/Core authority sentence is mildly redundant with the opening mention of those modes.

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?

The absence of an output schema is offset somewhat because the description names what the source document response contains (document, canonical hash, observation time). However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, key calling details such as what content_id refers to and the revision format remain unspecified.

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 0% across three required parameters (content_id, source_revision, source_deployment), so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only the deployment parameter is indirectly illuminated by the Core vs Fleet mode discussion; content_id and the expected revision/hash format are never explained, leaving an agent to guess what identifier is acceptable.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: preview a verified Core-local or fresh scoped Fleet snapshot for runtime import, and it states the return payload (source document, canonical hash, observation time). It distinguishes the Core and Fleet modes, though the phrasing is jargon-heavy and it does not contrast itself against the closest library siblings such as opencdr_library_read or opencdr_library_evidence.

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?

It gives a clear workflow cue: this is read-only, and the returned hash/revision must be fed into a separate runtime_import command, so an agent knows this is the preview step. It lacks explicit exclusions, i.e., when to prefer opencdr_library_read or the evidence tool instead of this source preview.

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