source_list_drive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool lists sources with freshness status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what 'freshness status' entails. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance, and the third explains the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and only basic parameter info, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance. For a tool that interacts with Drive freshness, more context on what 'freshness' means or prerequisites would enhance completeness.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter: 'notebook_id: Notebook UUID' clarifies that it's a UUID identifier for a notebook. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only indicates it's a required string, so the description compensates well by explaining what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or examples, which could improve clarity further.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List sources with types and Drive freshness status.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('sources'), and key attributes ('types and Drive freshness status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'source_describe' or 'source_sync_drive', which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use before source_sync_drive to identify stale sources.' This explicitly states when to use the tool (before a specific sibling) and why (to identify stale sources). However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternatives, such as whether 'source_describe' might be better for detailed info on a single source.

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