view_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Open element source in IDE' implying an external action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this triggers an IDE launch, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The 'if supported' hint adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a brief conditional, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely involves external IDE interaction, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'open' entails, what happens on success/failure, or the return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 'id' documented as 'Element ID'. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 'Open element source in IDE (if supported)' states the action (open source) and resource (element), but is vague about what 'element source' means and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_element_source' or 'view_attribute_source'. It provides a basic purpose 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 includes no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'if supported' as a conditional, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'get_element_source', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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