get_package_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Read the contents' implies a safe read-only operation, which is useful, but there is no disclosure of truncation limits for large files, permission requirements, or what a listing looks like when filePath is omitted. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the prerequisite hint. Nothing is wasted, though it is very brief for a tool whose behavior is otherwise undocumented.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally state what is returned (file contents vs. a file listing when filePath is omitted). It covers the basics but leaves the return shape and large-file behavior to inference.

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%, with filePath and packageId fully documented including an example path and the enumeration of package identifiers. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the contents of a specific source file from a @gaddario98 React package.' This is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_source or get_package_types, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Provides clear sequencing: 'Use list_packages first to see available packages, then explore files.' That is real usage context. It stops short of distinguishing when to use this tool versus search_source or get_package_docs, so no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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