quickshell_get_implementation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that this is a real-world implementation reference, NOT official documentation, and tells the agent to trust the docs on disagreement — a valuable reliability caveat beyond any schema. It also implies files are large and subject to partial reads, though it doesn't explicitly describe max_chars truncation behavior.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then parameter usage, then the reliability caveat. The organization is logical and every sentence earns its place, though it could tighten the parameter list slightly.

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 4 params, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, the supporting workflow, the find behavior, and a key reliability caveat, while an output schema exists to describe return values. Remaining gaps (max_chars semantics, exhaustive source values) are minor for a documentation-reading tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well for most parameters: it explains find's values ('osd'/'workspace'/'ipc') and purpose, and tells the agent where path comes from. Source is only implied via 'Caelestia or Noctalia', and max_chars is left unexplained, leaving minor gaps.

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 specific verb ('Read') with a precise resource ('a QML file from the Caelestia or Noctalia shells'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools (get_type, get_guide_page, get_example, get_qt_type). The reference to quickshell_search_implementations further differentiates its data source.

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?

Explains the workflow for obtaining paths from quickshell_search_implementations before calling, and instructs how to use the find parameter to jump to relevant sections. It implies usage context versus siblings but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool in favor of the other get_* tools.

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