get_asset_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful behavioral fact: the return payload is conditional (bundled source vs. generated CSS variables). However, it never explains what governs which mode is returned, so the disclosure is incomplete.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the "or" clause makes the front-loaded promise harder to parse than it needs to be.

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, an undocumented id parameter, and an unexplained dual-mode return value, the definition leaves an agent unable to predict what it will receive or how to select the right mode. A conditional-output tool needs that ambiguity resolved in the description.

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?

There is one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it beyond the implicit connection to "asset." The constrained id pattern and the distinction between asset ids and token ids are left entirely undocumented.

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?

It has a verb ("Return") and a resource ("bundled original asset source"), but the second clause ("or explicit CSS variables generated from declared style tokens") describes an entirely different output, leaving the tool's actual purpose ambiguous. It does not clearly distinguish itself from near-siblings such as get_template_source or get_asset_manifest.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_asset_manifest, get_template_source, get_source_links, or any other sibling. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are given.

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