get_portal_component_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('Returns full body by default' and 'Never chunk for analysis'), which is valuable. However, it omits details like response format, error conditions, or required permissions, leaving gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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 with front-loaded action. No wasted words. However, the brevity sacrifices important details, making it efficient but slightly under-informative.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error handling, or integration with other tools, leaving the agent under-informed for effective 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 50%; description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides. The description only implicitly covers 'fields' via 'Fetch widget/provider/SI fields', but does not explain 'table', 'sys_id', or 'script_offset' beyond what is in the schema. For parameters without schema descriptions, the description is silent.

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?

Clearly specifies the action ('Fetch') and resource ('widget/provider/SI fields'), and distinguishes default behavior ('full body by default'). While not explicitly differentiating from all siblings, the description implies this tool is for fetching code fields, which is a distinct purpose among the listed siblings.

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?

Gives a clear negative guideline ('Never chunk for analysis'), but lacks positive when-to-use context or direct comparison to alternatives. The agent is not told when to prefer this over siblings like search_server_code or get_widget_instance.

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