read_object_source

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

Discloses return format and valid object_type values, but no annotations exist. Missing behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if object is not found.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a bullet list for object_type and return format. No fluff, purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format for a simple read tool. Lacks explanation of ALL_SOURCE, permissions, or error scenarios, but given no output schema and low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning for object_type (list of allowed types, omission behavior), but owner and object_name are only mentioned as required with no additional context beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads full source code of a stored object from ALL_SOURCE in Fusion, specifying verb 'read' and resource 'source code'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_procedure_signature (signature only) and search_source (search, not read).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_procedure_signature or list_package_contents. Only lists valid object_type values but does not provide contextual usage instructions.

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