get_raw_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-like retrieval action but does not disclose behavior for missing keys, default branch resolution, precedence between branch and pullRequest, or whether the response is actually plain text versus wrapped in a structure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to stating the core action, and no restructuring 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide more context, but it leaves key invocation details unspecified. It does not explain branch versus pullRequest semantics, how the source file is located, or what the response looks like. This is not enough for reliable agent-driven 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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions ('File key', 'Branch name', 'Pull request ID'), so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The description does not clarify how 'key' maps to a file or how branch and pullRequest interact.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('source code as raw text'), so the tool's core purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_pull_requests or get_measures, though the name itself is fairly distinctive.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also does not explain whether branch or pullRequest should be preferred, whether they can be combined, or what happens if neither is provided. The agent is left to infer usage solely from parameter names.

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