get_entity_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — nothing about what "source" contains, what happens for an unknown id, or the return shape, despite there being no output schema.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the key scoping constraint (one entity, by id) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so it earns high marks on conciseness but not perfection.

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 tool with no output schema and an ambiguous noun ("source"), the description should clarify what is returned. Given the rich set of overlapping siblings, an agent lacks enough to confidently select or interpret this tool's output.

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% and the only parameter is documented as a UUID, so the baseline is 3. The description's "by id" merely restates what the schema already makes explicit and adds no format or constraint detail.

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?

States a verb (get) and a resource (entity source) scoped to one entity by id, which is more than a tautology. However, "source" is ambiguous — it could mean source code, provenance, or origin — and the description does nothing to separate this from siblings like kin_provenance_query or get_context_pack.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kin_provenance_query, get_context_pack, or find_references. The phrase "by id" implies a lookup precondition but no exclusions or routing cues are given.

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