sourcery_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing about behavior: no indication of whether this is a read-only discovery call, whether it requires auth, whether results are static per bundle, or caching/rate behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a complete gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than wasted 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of information about what this call yields, yet it never explains the return shape or contents of an 'integration boundary'. The agent cannot determine what to expect or how to use the result.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 pairs a verb ('Return') with a resource ('the verified Sourcery integration boundary for this bundle'), but 'integration boundary' is undefined jargon that an agent cannot map to a concrete outcome. It does not clarify how this differs from siblings like sourcery_security_snapshot or sourcery_api_request, and it largely restates the tool name's idea of 'capabilities' without saying what those capabilities are.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling it substitutes for. With 11 sibling tools covering findings, groups, security, and raw API access, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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