lc_get_yara_source

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Fetch' (a read operation) but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling (e.g., when source not found), authorization requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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?

The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action and resource. While concise, it may be too terse, but for a simple fetch tool this is efficient and contains no filler.

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 no output schema and two required parameters, the description could be more complete by hinting at the return structure or the relationship between oid and name. However, for a basic getter, the current minimalism is borderline adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description must compensate. The description implies 'name' is the key identifier but does not explain the 'oid' parameter's role or why it is required. The agent lacks semantic context for half the parameters.

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 'Fetch one YARA source by name' uses a specific verb ('fetch'), identifies the resource ('YARA source'), and specifies the retrieval key ('by name'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like lc_list_yara_sources which return multiple 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lc_list_yara_sources). The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this specific fetch is appropriate.

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