get_source

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

The annotation `readOnlyHint=true` already signals a safe read operation. The description goes beyond this by noting that it returns exact current content and includes commit attribution, which tells the agent more about what to expect without repeating the annotation.

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 two focused sentences with no fluff. The primary action and subject are front-loaded, and the value add about `file` is kept brief.

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 `readOnlyHint` set, an existing output schema, and a fairly simple parameter shape, the description gives most of what an agent needs to use the tool after a search. The remaining gaps are the exact form of `repository` and line-range boundary behavior, which are useful but not crippling.

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%, so the description partially compensates: it clearly explains `file` as the repository-relative path from a search result and introduces the concept of line ranges. However, `repository` is left only with its name, and start/end line semantics are not fully specified.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('indexed file' with optional line range), and places it cleanly in the repository/search context. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling search and repository-maintenance 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?

The description gives concrete usage context by explaining that `file` comes from a search result's source line, and that the tool reads from a synced repository. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when not to use it, but the intended workflow is evident.

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