get_global_source_detail

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the exact return format ("ID [type] text .class [events] [bindings] (children_count)"), which is valuable since there is no output schema. It still does not mention size limits or pagination.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the output-format details. The dense line-format string earns its place by describing the return shape, though it is harder to parse than a short prose summary.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by explaining the tree line format; annotations cover safety and the schema covers both params. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the relationship to get_global_source_contents remains unaddressed.

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% and the schema description already explains the component hint, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the marginal insight that component can be omitted after calling list_global_sources, but does not enrich global_source_id beyond the schema.

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 ("Get full detail of a global source") and even describes the output shape (compact tree view of all elements). It does not differentiate from the close sibling get_global_source_contents, which sounds like it could return similar detail, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

"Provide component for faster lookup; omit if you already called list_global_sources" gives one actionable condition tied to a sibling, but it is guidance about a parameter rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_global_source_contents. Usage is implied rather than explicitly scoped.

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