whodb_platform_source_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the plain 'This tool is read-only' line earns nothing. However, the description adds real operational context: the kind:path parent reference format, field selection guidance, and the fact that the workspace object overrides targeting per-call without changing session defaults.

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?

Four tight lines with purpose front-loaded and no filler; each sentence conveys a distinct operational fact (source refs, parent syntax, read-only, field preference, workspace targeting).

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It adequately covers source/parent addressing and workspace targeting, leaving only minor gaps around paging semantics (page_size/page_offset) that the schema already names.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that source accepts name or id, explaining the kind:path syntax for parent, and giving a concrete fields example (["Name", "Kind", "HasChildren"]), which is more usable than the terse schema descriptions.

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 and resource ('Browse objects in one hosted WhoDB source'), which is distinguishable from siblings like whodb_platform_source_rows or whodb_platform_source_columns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Use the source name or id from whodb_platform_sources') and a browsing hint, but never states when to choose this tool over whodb_platform_source_rows, source_columns, or source_content. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explained.

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