Get Carve source blocks

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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, and the description usefully adds that it returns byte offsets and a source sha256 and that AST is opt-in via includeAst. It says nothing about failure modes for non-matching selectors or the 1MB source limit beyond what the schema states.

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, tightly front-loaded with the return payload first and the AST caveat last; nothing is padded. Slightly clipped phrasing ('No AST unless includeAst') trades a little clarity for brevity.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is largely covered elsewhere, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining holes are the meaning of the selector kinds and behavior on no-match, which an agent needs to invoke the tool reliably.

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 coverage is 50%: 'scope' and 'source' are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces both. However, the five selector kinds (id, heading-id, footnote-label, node-type, ast-path) and includeAst have no descriptions anywhere, so the description leaves a key disambiguation gap unfilled.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('return the exact source text of the nodes a selector matches') plus the two scoping modes (node vs heading section). The clause 'No AST unless includeAst' cleanly distinguishes it from AST-returning siblings like carve_parse and carve_select_ast_nodes.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when raw source text plus offsets/checksum is wanted, and the 'No AST' clause hints that AST retrieval belongs to another tool. But no alternative is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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