GetObjectVersionSource

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

With no annotations provided, the description indicates it is read-only via '[read-only]', but does not elaborate on authentication, error handling, or response format. While sufficient for a simple fetch, more detail could improve 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with '[read-only]' and clear verb. Perfectly structured for quick 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?

Given low complexity, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essential flow. It could mention the output is source code text, but the operation is simple and well-understood.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the key context that content_uri comes from GetObjectVersions, but this largely mirrors the schema description. No additional parameter meaning beyond schema.

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 tool fetches source code for a specific object version using a content_uri from GetObjectVersions. It distinguishes from siblings like GetObjectVersions and specific Get<ObjectType> tools by focusing on versioned source retrieval.

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 tells when to use the tool: when you have a content_uri from GetObjectVersions. It implies the prerequisite of calling GetObjectVersions first, which is clear. It does not explicitly state alternatives but given siblings, the usage is unambiguous.

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