get_metaschema_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that reads are verbatim, that responses may be truncated to fit a response budget, and that continuation requires advancing to `end-line` + 1 while `has-more` is true. It doesn't state error behavior for a bad path or an out-of-range line, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action and the fallback listing mode, then the trigger, then the pagination caveat — a sensible ordering. It is slightly longer than strictly needed and has an awkward mid-sentence line break, but no sentence is filler.

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, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the continuation protocol involving `end-line` and `has-more`. Only the shape of the non-truncated response (what a 'file listing' entry looks like) is left implicit.

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 file, line_count, and start_line are already documented, including the 1-500 bound and the omit-to-list behavior. The description restates the dual-mode meaning of `file` but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (read a line range of a bundled OSCAL Metaschema source file) and explicitly covers the second mode (list files with line counts when `file` is omitted). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_oscal_schema or list_oscal_resources without opening the schema.

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 an explicit trigger: use when checking a `source-file` and `line` returned by get_definition, get_allowed_values, get_constraints, or find_references_to. That names the exact upstream tools whose output feeds this one, which is stronger than a generic when-to-use statement.

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