read_source

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies this is a read operation and constraints the scope to sources discovered in the current round, but it does not describe side effects, prerequisites beyond reading, or output behavior. The output schema likely covers return values, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, returned data, and a critical usage requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main omission is explicit atom_id semantics, but the rest of the invocation context is clear enough.

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% and the description never mentions atom_id or how it maps to a source. The parameter name and type provide some inference, but the description adds no explicit semantic guidance beyond the tool name. This is a clear gap for a single required parameter.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('读取' / read), a specific resource ('本轮已发现来源' / sources discovered in this round), and what is returned ('原文与定位信息' / full text and location information). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling search_sources by emphasizing pre-discovered sources.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: '引用前必须先读' (must read before citing). It clearly signals when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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