source_get_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('Get') and performance characteristics ('Much faster'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid source IDs. It provides some behavioral context but lacks completeness for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with purpose statement, key differentiators, parameter documentation, and return values in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and constraints, the second provides performance context, and the structured Args/Returns sections efficiently document I/O without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with output schema (implied by Returns documentation), the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, differentiation, performance characteristics, parameter meaning, and return structure. The main gap is lack of error handling or edge case information, but overall it provides substantial context given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter, but the description explicitly documents 'source_id: Source UUID' in the Args section, providing essential semantic information. While it doesn't elaborate on UUID format or validation, it compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get raw text content') and resource ('of a source'), distinguishing it from siblings like notebook_query by emphasizing 'no AI processing' and 'much faster than notebook_query for content export'. It provides explicit differentiation from related 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for content export') and when not to use it ('no AI processing'), with a clear alternative named ('notebook_query'). It provides direct guidance on tool selection based on speed and processing needs.

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