source_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: probe=True triggers network initialization checks, implying latency and external access. It says nothing about cost, timeouts, or what happens when a source is unreachable.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed immediately by the only conditional behavior. No filler and nothing buried.

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 read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (configuration readiness per source) and the one optional flag's effect. It could say more about what 'readiness' reports or how failures appear, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% and the single parameter 'probe' is documented only as a bare boolean with a default. The description compensates by explaining that probe=True performs network initialization checks, which is the key semantic an agent needs. The default value is available in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 (List) and resource (every source's configuration readiness), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tools, but those (broad_search, fetch_page, fetch_pages) are in an unrelated domain, so the risk of confusion is low.

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 description implies when to set probe=True ('performs network initialization checks'), which is a partial usage cue. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the siblings or what prerequisite state a source must be in for the check to be meaningful.

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