whodb_platform_source_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: secrets (passwords, tokens, client secrets, private keys) are masked, which is exactly what an agent needs to trust the output. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output and scope, followed by the redaction guarantee and the workspace note. The final sentence overlaps with schema text already covering per-call targeting, so it is slightly redundant, but overall tight.

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 structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one non-obvious thing (redaction of secrets) plus scoping. Nothing critical is missing, though richer guidance on alternates would complete it.

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 the nested workspace object is already fully documented, including the defaults chain. The description's restatement of the {host, org, project} targeting and 'without changing defaults' largely duplicates the schema, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (return, redacted) and resource (connection configuration for one hosted source) with explicit scope (one source). This clearly separates it from siblings like whodb_platform_sources (listing), whodb_platform_source_content/columns/rows (data reads), and whodb_platform_source_update (mutation).

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?

"Use this to understand source shape without exposing credentials" gives a clear use context, and the redaction framing tells the agent when this is preferable to a raw config read. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use whodb_platform_source_test instead), so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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