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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that the listing is workspace-scoped and includes sync state; it says nothing about pagination, staleness of the sync state, or auth requirements. Useful but thin beyond what annotations provide.

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: scope first, then examples, then the returned state. The eight-item example list is slightly enumerative, but each item genuinely expands what counts as a 'source', so it earns its space.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers scope plus the nature of the results. The one small gap is that it gives no cue about when sync state might be stale or how to act on it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is no argument syntax for the description to clarify, and the description correctly adds no parameter guidance because none is needed.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus resource ('knowledge sources connected to this workspace'), and it enumerates concrete examples (GitHub, Slack, Notion, Google Drive, OneDrive, Granola, S3, crawled website) so an agent knows exactly what kind of entities are returned. It also names the returned attribute (sync state), which no sibling tool covers.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description — read this to discover what sources exist — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. The sibling list is entirely memory/entity tools, so there is little ambiguity to resolve, but the description does not do that work itself.

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