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 responsibility. It mentions returning 'types and Drive freshness status' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what 'freshness status' specifically entails (e.g., timestamps), or any authorization needs. The parameter notebook_id is not explained as scoping to a specific notebook's sources.

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 concise with two sentences plus a parameter line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, contains no superfluous text, and is easy to parse.

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 one parameter and an output schema (not provided), the description is adequate but minimally detailed. It does not explain that sources are listed for a specific notebook, leaving room for ambiguity. For an agent, clearer scoping would improve decision-making.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only one required parameter. The description adds 'Notebook UUID' which is minimal and largely redundant with the parameter name. It does not explain the parameter's role in scoping the list or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer its purpose.

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 the resource 'sources' with specific return information ('types and Drive freshness status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like source_sync_drive and source_describe by focusing on listing all sources with freshness metadata.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool before source_sync_drive to identify stale sources, providing clear workflow guidance. This effectively contextualizes when to invoke the tool.

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