whodb_platform_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, yet the description adds a genuinely new auth requirement ("Requires a saved login") and a security guarantee ("never exposes source credentials"), plus per-call targeting semantics. It stops short of covering pagination, limits, or failure behavior.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are mostly tight. The workspace argument is described twice ("Pass workspace {host, org, project}" and "Accepts workspace {host, org, project} for per-call targeting"), which is a small redundancy rather than a structural failure.

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, return values need not be described, and the auth, targeting, and credential-safety concerns are all covered. Missing only ancillary operational detail (result size or result capping) for a list operation that could return many sources.

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 schema already documents both params, making 3 the baseline. The description adds useful guidance beyond the schema by recommending a specific fields projection (["id", "name", "type"]) for discovery and clarifying that workspace targets only the current call.

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 ("List") plus resource ("hosted WhoDB sources") and scope ("in the selected organization and project"), which separates it from the many source detail siblings like whodb_platform_source_config or source_rows. It never explicitly names a sibling, so it stops short of full 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?

"Pass workspace {host, org, project}, or omit it to use process/saved defaults" and "Requires a saved login on the target host" give clear conditions and prerequisites. It does not name when to prefer an alternative tool, but the targeting and login context is concrete.

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