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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful shape: each entry includes passage counts and a 'since when' timestamp, and it notes workspace scoping. It doesn't mention pagination or result-size limits, but with strong annotation coverage a 4 is warranted.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then a parenthetical enumeration of source types that earns its space by telling the agent what to expect. Two sentences, no filler; the mid-sentence list is dense but purposeful.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by previewing returned fields (passage count, since-date). Nothing essential for calling it is missing, though pagination/limits and whether an empty workspace returns an empty list are unstated.

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 0% for the single `workspaceId` parameter, so the description carries the burden. 'In this workspace' implies workspace scoping but adds no format or default guidance, leaving the only parameter thinly documented.

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 ('Every source Sparky has learned from in this workspace') and enumerates the source types covered — files, websites, social style, brand profile, taught text. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_knowledge_source, search_knowledge, and delete_knowledge_source.

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?

Explicitly gives three use cases: discover what Sparky knows, read a specific one via get_knowledge_source, or obtain the exact `source` value for delete_knowledge_source. The routing to alternatives is stated rather than inferred.

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