ipt_peek_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. It implies a read-only preview operation but does not disclose behavior such as whether it parses the entire file, how many rows are returned, whether it errors on malformed input, or whether it requires the source to be already configured. The phrase 'as the IPT parsed them' hints at parsing behavior but is too vague to be actionable.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('First rows of a source'). However, it is so terse that it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an ambiguous 'source' parameter, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what 'source' refers to, how many rows will be returned, or what the output format looks like. The sibling tools suggest a rich IPT management context, but this description does not provide enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%: the 'shortname' parameter has a description ('Resource shortname'), but 'source' has no description. The tool description does not explain what 'source' means in this context (e.g., a file path, a dataset name, or a source ID). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, and the undocumented 'source' parameter remains ambiguous.

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 'First rows of a source as the IPT parsed them' conveys a specific verb (peek) and resource (source), and the phrase 'as the IPT parsed them' distinguishes it from a raw file preview. However, it is terse and does not explicitly state what the tool returns or how it relates to sibling tools like ipt_configure_source or validate_tsv.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several source-related tools (ipt_configure_source, ipt_add_source, ipt_delete_source), but the description does not mention any of them or specify conditions for choosing this tool.

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