Get Webhound Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it 'reads' sources, consistent with annotations, but offers no additional behavioral details (e.g., behavior with invalid session_id, pagination, or rate limits).

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is appropriately concise and front-loaded, containing no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It could mention the optional nature of the return or the format, but the output schema fills that gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only implies the session_id parameter via 'for a session'. It does not describe the parameter's format, constraints, or acceptable values beyond what the schema provides (required string).

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 action 'Read' and the resource 'source inventory and citation counts' for a specific scope 'for a session'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like webhound_get_claims or webhound_get_output, which focus on different resources.

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. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or how it complements sibling tools like webhound_get_evidence_pack or webhound_get_claims.

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