get_source_evidence

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 implies a read-only operation ('Return') and hints at verification with 'verified source bundle', but says nothing about permissions, pagination (despite a page parameter), side effects, or output characteristics.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's output, making it appropriately sized for a concise statement.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral context that an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps to the 'bundle' parameter via 'source bundle' and gives no meaning for incident_id, function_ids, db, or page, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Return') and resource ('exact file/line/hash citations from a verified source bundle'), which is more precise than a generic 'get source'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_function_source or get_provenance, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, and no context about when this tool is preferable to related tools such as get_function_source or get_provenance. The single sentence only describes the output, not the conditions for invocation.

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