edb_list_source

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the behavior: 'Current line is marked with '->'' and 'Reads directly from the source file if available.' It also specifies the return type (str), which is not in 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 concise with three lines of explanation followed by a structured parameter listing. It avoids redundancy and is well-organized, though the parameter details could be more compact.

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 complexity (single parameter object with 3 nested fields) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter constraints, and return type. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficiently complete for typical 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%, but the description lists all parameters (file, line, count) with defaults and constraints (1-200 for count). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions like 'Source file path'. The description compensates for the lack of schema-level description.

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 'Display source code with line numbers' and specifies the current line marker. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like edb_disassemble or edb_dump_state.

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 when to use (to view source code) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. It lacks usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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