airbyte_get_source_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the tool's safety profile. The description adds that it returns the 'full definition' with specific fields, providing some context about the response. However, it does not discuss error handling, pagination, or behavior on missing IDs. With annotations providing the core behavioral traits, the description adds moderate value.

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 three short sections: a clear opening sentence, a bulleted 'When to Use', and a code example. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 simplicity (read-only lookup, two required params) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and provides usage scenarios. It lacks mention of the optional response_format parameter and error cases, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward tool.

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% per context, but the actual schema has descriptions for workspace_id and definition_id. The tool description includes a code example with these parameters but does not explain them or the optional response_format. Since the schema itself provides basic descriptions, the example adds marginal value, earning a baseline 3.

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 tool retrieves details of a specific source connector definition, using the verb 'Get'. It specifies the resource ('source connector definition') and lists what is returned (name, Docker image, connector specification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like airbyte_list_source_definitions (which lists all) and airbyte_get_source (which gets an instance).

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 'When to Use' section provides two explicit scenarios: inspecting a specific connector and checking the Docker image version. While it does not exclude alternatives like using the list tool first, it gives clear context for when to invoke this tool. No explicit 'when not to use' or comparison with siblings, but the guidance is focused and actionable.

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