read_git_source

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral detail 'without fetching' and the prerequisite 'explicitly mapped', which are not present in annotations. No contradiction exists; the description enriches the safety profile with operational context.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and states the core constraints without any filler. Every word carries meaning, making it ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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 simple read operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and the 'without fetching' behavior. It lacks explicit return format details and error conditions, but given the simplicity and the presence of safety annotations, the agent has sufficient information to decide when to call and what to expect.

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?

The schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (concept, sourceId, maxContentBytes), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description mentions 'pinned sources[].git entry' and 'explicitly mapped checkout', which loosely map to concept and sourceId, but it does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('one pinned sources[].git entry'), and a scope ('from an explicitly mapped checkout or bare repository'). It also distinguishes the tool by its 'without fetching' behavior, clearly separating it from potentially similar read operations like read_bundle_asset.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for a pinned git entry in an explicitly mapped checkout or bare repository, and explicitly states 'without fetching' as a behavior. It implies that if the source is not pinned or not explicitly mapped, or if fetching is desired, another tool should be used, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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