get_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that output is returned in character chunks (i.e., results may be truncated and require pagination) and clarifies a line-numbering convention against the full source, but it omits chunk size behavior and how to iterate.

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?

A single compact sentence with two clauses, both of which carry information: the read mode and a caveat about line-number semantics. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the semicolon-joined caveat could be more clearly separated.

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 four-parameter read tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description does too little: an agent cannot tell what path means relative to component_id, nor how to page through chunks. The chunking hint is the only guidance offered.

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 all four parameters (path, component_id, limit, offset) arrive with bare titles and no meaning. 'Character chunks' indirectly implies that limit/offset are chunking controls, but the description never explains what path vs component_id represent or how they relate, leaving the required-parameter pair effectively undocumented.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Read original code') plus a retrieval mode ('in character chunks'), which is clear enough to separate it from analysis-oriented siblings like analyze_form or migration_risks. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 clause about risk line numbers referring to the complete component source implies this tool is the follow-up to migration_risks, but the connection is only hinted at rather than spelled out. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over analyze_form or when not to use it.

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