get_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read', indicating non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens if the file is not found, any required permissions, rate limits, or the exact output format. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single sentence of 15 words with no fluff. It front-loads the action and specification of parameters efficiently.

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 the tool has 2 string parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality but misses details like the role of the 'version' parameter and the return format (e.g., plain text). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'fileOrClass' parameter accepts a relative path, class name, or FQCN, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'type: string'. However, the 'version' parameter is left unexplained, so only partial semantics are provided.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'full source file'. It specifies three identification methods: relative path, class name, or fully qualified class name. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_method_source' (which reads a specific method) and 'search_text'/'search_symbol' (which search within files).

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 implies when to use (when needing a full source file by various identifiers) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or which sibling to choose instead. For example, if only a method is needed, 'get_method_source' would be more appropriate, but this is not mentioned.

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