get_class_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: Kotlin @Metadata/@DebugMetadata is stripped by default, line numbers are preserved through that stripping, and with_line_numbers prefixes each line with 1-based numbers. It omits failure modes (nonexistent class, permissions) and payload size, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, then two compact paragraphs each dedicated to a flag with its consequence. No filler; every sentence conveys a behavioral fact or an actionable instruction.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description covers flag semantics, default transformations, and the downstream add_comment contract, while the output schema handles return shape. The missing piece is class-name input format/validation expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the two non-obvious flags (with_line_numbers semantics and slim default/stripping trade-off), but class_name is never described — no indication of qualified-name format or whether it must exist.

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 the Java source of a specific class'), which readily separates it from siblings that return smali (get_smali_of_class) or method/field listings. An agent knows exactly what artifact comes back.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: call this with with_line_numbers=True before add_comment 'instead of counting lines yourself', and pass slim=False when a raw dump is needed. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_smali_of_class or the bulk class-code tools, so not quite a full when/when-not map.

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