get_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, permission requirements, potential errors, or any other behavioral context. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word is useful.

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?

For a simple getter with a complete schema and output schema present, the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., read-only confirmation, alternative usage) and the absence of any usage guidance leave the description incomplete beyond the basics.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters (source_id and collector_id) with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-related information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 'Get a source's full configuration' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('source's full configuration'), making it clear this retrieves a single source's settings. It distinguishes from list_sources by implying a single source, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_collector or other sibling tools.

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_collector or list_sources. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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