get_xcos_block_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about whether the block must already be installed/loaded, what happens for an unknown name, or the shape of the returned source text.

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?

One short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is also the source of its gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter description coverage, the description leaves the single required parameter and the block-installed precondition unspecified, which is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'name' parameter. The description only obliquely references 'an installed block's ... source' and never states that the parameter is the block name or what form it takes (e.g., path vs. bare name).

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) and resource (an installed block's Scilab interface source), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_xcos_blocks and inspect_xcos_model. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use under which condition, so it stops short of 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?

The phrase 'for accurate configuration' hints at intent but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to consider. Nothing tells the agent when this should be preferred over inspect_xcos_model or list_xcos_blocks.

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