get_source

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns file, range, and text, which is helpful. However, it does not address error behavior (e.g., if path does not exist), performance characteristics, or side effects. The description provides moderate transparency but lacks depth.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it omits crucial information about parameters and usage, making it under-informative. Conciseness is positive, but completeness suffers.

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's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description explains the output structure and provides an example, which is helpful. But it lacks parameter descriptions and error handling context, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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%, yet the description does not explain what 'path' or 'context_lines' mean. The parameter semantics are entirely missing; the description only mentions output, not input. With 2 parameters and no explanation, this is a critical gap.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving SystemVerilog source lines for an object, with a specific example (FF instance to always_ff block). It is specific about the verb ('get') and resource ('source lines'), and the output fields (file, range, text) inform the agent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the purpose is unique enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_hierarchy or trace_cone. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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