viewSource

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'view', implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if inputs are invalid. This lack of detail leaves behavioral expectations unclear.

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 very concise (8 words) and front-loaded with the action and key parameters. However, it might be overly brief given the tool's complexity (3 required params, no output schema). While no word is wasted, a bit more detail on usage or output would improve clarity.

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 does not mention the return format, any constraints (e.g., file size limit, encoding), or error conditions. Without an output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns, which is a significant gap for a tool with three required parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description merely restates the parameter names (hash, file, type) without adding new semantic meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool views source files, specifying the key parameters (hash, file path, type). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like getJsonReport or other view-related tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when or when not to use this tool versus siblings. The description simply states what it does, without any context or alternatives, which is insufficient for an agent to make informed choices.

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