get_source_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the key constraint that it operates 'within one configured allowed workspace', which is a behavioral boundary not captured by annotations. It also says 'bounded source lines', implying it reads a limited range rather than an entire file, adding contextual value.

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, well-structured sentence that communicates the core function immediately. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 is concise but leaves several gaps: no usage differentiation from sibling tools, no parameter semantics beyond what the names imply, and no information about constraints like error handling when workspace_root is not configured. However, the annotations and the presence of an output schema mitigate some of these gaps, making the tool minimally viable but lacking in contextual richness for an agent navigating a complex toolset.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter semantics. The description only gives a high-level idea ('bounded source lines') and does not explain the roles of 'file', 'line', 'before', 'after', or 'workspace_root'. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify the relationship between 'line' and the before/after values, or the significance of 'workspace_root' as a security boundary.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'bounded source lines', clearly indicating the tool reads a limited range of lines from a file. The clause 'within one configured allowed workspace' adds scope and constraint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like read_artifact_page or resolve_source, though the 'bounded' and 'workspace' wording hints at its unique purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. Users must rely on the name and the brief description alone, which is insufficient for making an informed choice among the many siblings.

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