Get review source

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains that the default return is the raw document verbatim and that with_revision=true returns a JSON envelope with source and revision. It also discloses the important concurrency behavior that the revision is issued atomically with this read and pairs with update_source's expected_revision.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then moves cleanly into default behavior and the with_revision alternative. Despite the dense concurrency detail, every sentence contributes operational information and there is no extraneous material.

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?

With no output schema present, the description adequately explains both return modes: raw verbatim source by default and a JSON envelope with source plus revision when requested. It also supplies the critical cross-tool concurrency context needed to use the revision token correctly with update_source.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters in detail. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the atomic issuance of the revision token and warning against using a separate get_status poll as the token source for guarded saves.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get a review's current source, defined as the editable draft in markdown or raw LaTeX for kind=latex reviews. It clearly distinguishes source retrieval from related operations such as get_feedback, get_status, and update_source, so an agent can identify the right tool without inspecting sibling schemas.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: read the source before applying feedback when the draft is not in memory, such as a resumed session. It also distinguishes the default raw-document mode from with_revision=true and explicitly says to use this tool, not a separate get_status poll, as the revision token source for guarded saves.

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