read_git_source

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

The annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying 'without fetching' and the requirement for an 'explicitly mapped' checkout or bare repository, which are not captured in the annotations.

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 unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in 14 words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (likely the blob content). It mentions maxContentBytes but does not explicitly state the return type or behavior on edge cases, leaving some gap. The 'without fetching' and mapping constraints are useful, but return semantics are missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight extra meaning by referencing 'pinned sources[].git entry', which aligns with the sourceId parameter but does not substantially go beyond the schema's own descriptions for concept and sourceId.

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 clearly states the action (read), the specific resource (pinned sources[].git entry), and the context (explicitly mapped checkout or bare repository). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_bundle_asset or get_concept by focusing on git source entries without fetching.

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 implies usage context (reading a git blob from a mapped checkout or bare repo without network operations) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, making it more implied than explicit.

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