source.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation by using 'Fetch', but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., missing ID), rate limits, or the nature of the returned content. The description is too skeletal to provide adequate transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides immediate usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and low schema coverage for parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the return format, error behavior, or the role of the optional parameters. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, more detail is needed to make it self-contained.

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 only 33% (only 'id' has a brief description). The tool description does not add any meaning for the 'project_id' and 'project_root' parameters, leaving their purpose entirely unclear. The description only implicitly references the 'id' parameter. This fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 ('Fetch the full content of a single ingested source by ID') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like source.search by specifying it is used after a search to retrieve the complete text of a specific document. The verb+resource+scope pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 using this tool after source.search, which provides clear context for when to use it. While it does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives beyond source.search, the guidance is direct and actionable, earning a high score but not a perfect 5 due to lack of explicit not-to-use scenarios.

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