get_source_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that: it operates without touching account data. It says nothing about link format, failures, or auth requirements, so it earns only a middling score.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and the returned link types with no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

The description reasonably covers the return payload (source, playground, demo, license links) so no output schema is needed, but it leaves the sole input parameter entirely unexplained. For a one-param tool that gap is the main incompleteness.

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 never explains what the id refers to (template, asset, workflow?) or its expected format. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and it does not.

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 enumerates the resource returned (public source, playground, demo and license links), which is enough for an agent to know what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from lookalike siblings such as get_asset_source or get_template_source.

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 'without fetching account data' hints at the condition for choosing this lightweight variant, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is given. Usage is only implicitly conveyed.

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