source_get_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'text content' and implies read-only behavior, but it does not mention required permissions, error handling, or the exact format of the response. For a simple getter this is moderate transparency.

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 that directly states the action, resource, and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 tool is simple with two required parameters and no nested objects. The description clearly states the tool returns text content, which is sufficient for basic understanding. A note on return format or error cases would improve completeness, but it is largely adequate given the low complexity.

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?

Both parameters (notebook_id, source_id) are fully described in the schema with clear names and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'underlying text content of a source,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like source_describe (metadata) or source_delete (removal). The parenthetical '(used by grounding tool)' adds useful context about its 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 phrase 'used by grounding tool' provides clear context that this is an internal, low-level accessor for raw text. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over source_describe or when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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