source_get_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns raw indexed text, the wait/polling behavior, and the returned fields. However, it does not mention potential errors (e.g., source not found) or other edge cases, so it's not fully 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 concise and well-structured, leading with the main purpose, then explains returns and provides a flat Args list. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary filler.

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 covers the core action, parameter meaning, return values, and usage context. Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and correctly invoke the tool. The output schema (though not shown) is complemented by the Returns section.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: source_id as UUID, wait as polling activation, wait_timeout as max seconds, and poll_interval as check frequency. It also documents return fields, making parameter semantics clear.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Get raw text content of a source (no AI processing).' It specifies the resource (source) and the action (get content), and distinguishes itself from notebook_query by noting it's faster for content export.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('for content export') and contrasts it with an alternative ('Much faster than notebook_query'). It also clarifies that no AI processing is involved, helping the agent choose between this and other query tools.

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