get_source

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool is fast and uses libclang extent, and returns exact function body, which gives insight into behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or side effects.

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 main description is a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's core function. Minor improvement could be made to integrate parameter descriptions more tightly, but overall it is well-structured and to the point.

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 and that both parameters are well-documented, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks information about what happens when the symbol is not found or if there are multiple definitions, which could be important for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that 'name' should be fully qualified and that the result is obtained 'via libclang extent' for the function body. This provides meaningful context for parameter usage.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'source code of a symbol's definition', distinguishing it from siblings like 'explain_symbol' or 'lookup_symbol'. The phrase 'no LLM, fast' further sets expectations.

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 fast, plain source code retrieval without AI processing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'explain_symbol' or 'get_symbol_context', nor does it mention when not to use it.

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