get_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious behavior: missing sources trigger an 'exportGuidance' block with steps from MotionWorks' help. It also describes the tool's diagnostic output (readability, contributions, disagreements). It does not explicitly label the operation as read-only, but 'Report' and 'inspect' imply it; the description still adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage guideline, an edge-case behavior note, and an Args line. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (purpose and when to use) is front-loaded before technical details.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and an existing output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers all necessary context: what it reports, when to use it, and how it handles missing sources. The common native-project-without-export case is explicitly addressed, making the tool fully self-explanatory.

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 fully explain the parameter, and it does: 'path: File or directory to inspect.' This adds semantic meaning about both the type and expected usage, going beyond the bare schema property name. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report which export forms exist for a project and what each contributes.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters (get_udt, get_routine, get_tags, etc.), which target different entities. The agent can immediately understand the tool's unique function without inspecting schemas.

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 provides an explicit trigger: 'Use this when a tool returns less than you expected.' It also explains what the tool returns in that context (readable sources, contributions, disagreements). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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