source_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine piece of context beyond that — the authorized folder set is fixed and cannot be mutated through tools — but says nothing about return format, ordering, or whether the list is stable across calls.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the immutability constraint is stated up front. It loses a point because the leading sentence is a noun phrase rather than an action statement, so the reader must infer the operation from the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what the list actually returns (paths, IDs, display names, metadata). It also omits any mention of the nested request object's purpose. The immutability note is helpful but leaves the agent guessing about the response shape.

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 100% and there is effectively a single empty 'request' wrapper object, so the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no meaning about what goes in the request envelope, which is acceptable at baseline 3 given full 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 identifies the resource (local folders authorized by the owner) but never states the action — the verb 'list' exists only in the tool name. It also fails to distinguish itself from siblings like source_scan, source_inspect, and folder_assess, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 guidance on when to call this versus source_scan, source_inspect, or folder_assess. The only usage-adjacent statement is a negative constraint (folders can't be added/removed via tools), which does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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