fetch_code_snippets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden yet says nothing about behavior: whether snippets are truncated at size limits, how invalid node references or missing line ranges are handled, or whether the operation is read-only. Only the word 'Fetch' implies a non-mutating read.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 a structured node-list parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the definition should explain what the returned snippets look like (per-node grouping, truncation, ordering) and what happens on partial failures. None of that is present, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 both parameters (the YAML node list with file_path/start_line/end_line and the optional workspacePath) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics such as line-range edge cases or how workspacePath interacts with node paths, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch source code snippets') plus the input type ('for given graph nodes'), so an agent knows it retrieves raw source rather than metadata. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_node_definition or find_symbol, which also surface code-adjacent information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized/indexed workspace), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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