get_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the returned record, which is useful, but says nothing about error handling for invalid handles, whether the lookup is case-sensitive, or performance characteristics. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the most important content (what is returned) is front-loaded before the usage note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, the enumerated field list is the only disclosure of return contents, and it is present along with a usage cue. Minor gaps remain around behavior for missing/ambiguous handles, but the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% and the single 'source' parameter is documented in the schema with the accepted formats (handle or gramps_id, e.g. 'S0001'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 (Get) and resource (source), then enumerates exactly what the returned record contains (title, author, publication info, linked repositories, counts, attributes, citation count). This clearly separates it from siblings such as get_citation, get_repository, or update_source without needing to name them.

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 second sentence gives a concrete usage context: inspect a source before citing through it or editing it, which implicitly routes the agent away from add_source/update_source and toward cite_object workflows. It lacks an explicit when-not clause (e.g., 'do not use to fetch citations themselves'), so it stops short of a 5.

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