source_list

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining the difference between 'full' and 'compact' detail, the meaning of status 'error' as a ghost row, and how labels compose with status. This goes beyond the structured data.

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 efficiently structured: it opens with the primary purpose, then uses a compact code-block style to explain parameters. Every sentence adds meaningful detail, avoiding redundancy. It is well-sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and filtering options. It lacks explicit mention of pagination behavior (limit/offset) and does not enumerate all status values, but these are present in the schema. Overall, it provides a solid understanding without over-explaining.

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 explains the 'detail' parameter (full vs compact), the 'status' filter (including 'error' semantics), the 'label' parameter, and the 'notebook' parameter in prose. The 'limit' and 'offset' pagination parameters are not explicitly described, but they are standard and have defaults in the schema.

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 function: 'List a notebook's sources.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the additional note about accepting a notebook name or ID clarifies the input. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like source_read or source_delete by focusing on the listing operation.

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 context on how to use the tool, including filter options (status, label) and detail levels. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives like 'use source_read for a single source's content.' It still offers sufficient guidance for typical use cases.

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