dolphin_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operations are read-only, what permissions are required, how large source text can be, or how timeoutMs behaves, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it omits necessary detail at the expense of completeness elsewhere.

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 tool with three parameters, a nested arguments object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It explains the action options but says nothing about argument payloads, timeout behavior, or return format, so an agent cannot confidently invoke the read or breakpointLocations actions.

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 only names the three action values and gives no meaning for the arguments object or timeoutMs, leaving two of three parameters effectively undocumented.

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 names three concrete operations—listing loaded sources, fetching source text, and querying valid breakpoint lines—which clearly states the tool's purpose. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like dolphin_breakpoints, so it falls short of a 5.

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 three operations loosely imply when to use the tool, and the action enum values (list, read, breakpointLocations) map directly onto them. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over dolphin_breakpoints or other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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