get_source

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

The description discloses that connection config is included with secrets masked, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it falls short of disclosing other behaviors such as error handling, permission requirements, or whether it returns only the current state.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the essential information and includes a useful caveat about secrets masking. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is mostly sufficient: it states the tool retrieves full details and masks secrets. It could be improved by noting that source IDs are obtained from list_sources, but this is not a major gap.

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?

The schema shows a single source_id string parameter, but the description does not explain how to obtain a valid source_id or its exact format. Schema descriptions are absent, and the description's mention of 'one source' only implicitly refers to the parameter.

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 'Full detail for one source' clearly indicates this retrieves a single source's details, and the clarification 'including its connection config (secrets masked)' adds specificity. It distinguishes from list_sources by focusing on a single source, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 list_sources or other source-related tools. The description simply states what the tool does without mentioning prerequisites or alternatives.

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