get_source_capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the categories of information returned (capabilities, pagination semantics, rate limits), which hints at a read-only inspection tool, but it never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions are needed, or whether the 'source' must already be configured.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and enumerates contents; no filler. It is efficient but lacks the routing detail that would make it fully structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers what is returned. However, with one undocumented parameter and no annotations, an agent still lacks the information needed to supply the 'source' argument confidently.

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% for the single 'source' parameter. The description implies the argument identifies a specific source connector but gives no format, ID scheme, or examples, so the schema's bare string remains unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('capabilities... of a specific source connector'), with useful scope on what is inspected (capabilities, pagination semantics, rate limits). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_source_status or search_source, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_source_status or search_source, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the resource name alone.

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