get_element_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of the source location). This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., what 'source location' entails), error cases, or dependencies, leaving gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Element ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to obtain the ID or its format. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get source location for an element' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('source location'), but it's vague about what 'source location' means (e.g., file path, line number, URL) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'view_source' or 'view_attribute_source', which may have overlapping purposes. It avoids tautology by not restating the name, but lacks specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an element ID from another tool), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'view_source', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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