whodb_platform_source_rows

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds real value beyond those annotations by disclosing that results are capped by the requested limit AND the MCP --max-rows setting, a non-obvious behavioral constraint, plus the per-call workspace targeting behavior. It stops short of describing ordering, error modes, or pagination interaction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by scope, the row-cap behavior, read-only status, and workspace targeting. Efficient and well-ordered, with no filler, though it is slightly denser than strictly necessary.

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?

For a read-only preview tool with a full schema, output schema present, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, capping behavior, safety, and targeting. The remaining gap is that it does not reference the default row-cap value or note how limit and --max-rows interact.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter (ref, limit, offset, source, workspace). The description restates the ref format example and the source/workspace semantics but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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+resource: 'Preview rows for one hosted WhoDB source object.' An agent can tell it apart from broader tools like source_objects or source_content, but the description does not explicitly name which sibling to use when nested/related data is wanted, so it falls short of the 5 reserved for explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives implicit context (use a source name or id and an object ref) but never states when this tool is preferable to alternatives such as whodb_platform_source_objects or whodb_platform_source_content, nor any when-not-to-use exclusions. Usage is only lightly implied.

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