get_dag_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a source code', which implies a read operation but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'source code' entails (e.g., file content, metadata). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise ('Get a source code'), which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary details. It earns a 4 because it's brief and to the point, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 complexity (1 required parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'source code' refers to, how to use the 'file_token', or what the tool returns, making it insufficient for effective agent use in this context.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter ('file_token') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, which is critical for a required parameter.

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 'Get a source code' states a vague action ('Get') and resource ('source code'), but it doesn't specify what type of source code (e.g., DAG source code) or from where. It's slightly better than a tautology but lacks specificity compared to siblings like 'get_dag' or 'get_dag_details', which clearly indicate their scope.

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. With siblings like 'get_dag', 'get_dag_details', and 'get_import_error' that might relate to DAGs or code, the description offers no context for differentiation, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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