get_source_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. The return value description is vague ('String containing the source connector information'), lacking format or structure details.

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 clearly. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but could be more concise (e.g., combining into a single paragraph). No wasted sentences, though the return description is overly vague.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (though not provided here), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral context and clear usage guidelines. The output schema existence means return values don't need full explanation, but the description's vague return statement ('String containing...') is insufficient without seeing the schema.

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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'source_id' is the 'ID of the source connector to get information for' and specifies it 'should be valid UUID', which clarifies the expected format. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but here there is 1 parameter with partial coverage.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific source connector.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('source connector'), and scope ('detailed information'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sources' or 'get_destination_info', which would require 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_sources' (for listing all sources) or 'get_destination_info' (for destination details), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is when you need detailed info for a specific source ID.

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