get_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (full README, URL list) in the absence of an output schema, and '取' implies a read, but it says nothing about permissions, safety, or side effects for this operation.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then details the returned contents and the purpose. No redundant or wasted phrasing; slightly dense but efficient.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately describes the result shape (README full text plus extracted URL list) and the reason to call it. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could clarify its relationship to get_part.

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 100% and the single `name` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only reiterates that it targets a design note (某篇), adding little beyond the structured field, so the baseline 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+resource (取...来源信息) for a design note and enumerates what that source info contains (README 全文, 来源 URL 列表), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_part, which could also return note content, leaving the boundary somewhat implicit.

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 clause 用于查看零件学自哪个原版作品及其机制考据 gives a clear intended use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives (get_part, search_parts). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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