source_list_drive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies this is a read operation (listing) and hints at behavioral context by mentioning 'freshness status' and its role in identifying stale sources. However, it doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'freshness status' entails (e.g., timestamps, sync states). The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details for a tool with no annotations.

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 purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, data format).

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter: 'notebook_id: Notebook UUID'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type/requirement, clarifying it's a UUID for a notebook. With 0% coverage and 1 parameter, the description fully documents the parameter, earning a high score.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'sources', specifying they include 'types and Drive freshness status'. It distinguishes from siblings like source_describe or source_get_content by focusing on listing with freshness status rather than detailed information or content retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from notebook_list or other list tools beyond the resource type.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use before source_sync_drive to identify stale sources.' This gives a clear when-to-use context (as a precursor to syncing) and implies an alternative (source_sync_drive). However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or compare to other listing tools like notebook_list.

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