guide_get_source_excerpt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Full provenance' hints at metadata, but the description does not clarify read-only status, authentication needs, or side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 15-word sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It is concise and efficient, though this brevity omits important details covered in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which reduces the need to describe returns, but with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description falls short. It provides minimal context for correct invocation, lacking usage guidance and behavioral details.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter (test_id or section). The optional enum for section is not explained, nor is the required test_id. The description adds no value beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('raw text of a section for a test case'), and the scope ('single section or all sections') with an additional qualifier ('full provenance'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like guide_get_test which likely returns structured test data.

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 implies usage for retrieving raw text of a test case section, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like guide_get_test or guide_search. No exclusion criteria or context is given.

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