list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the notebook may be given as an exact ID or a unique title match, which hints at ambiguity behavior, but it never states what happens when a title is non-unique (error vs. arbitrary pick) or whether results are paginated.

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 states the resource, the returned fields, and the accepted input form with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 not be spelled out, and the annotations cover the safety profile, making the definition minimally sufficient for a one-parameter read tool. It falls short on how the 'unique title match' behaves on ambiguity and on routing relative to sibling tools such as source_fulltext.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'notebook' parameter, and it does add real meaning: the value can be either an exact notebook ID or a unique title match. It stops short of describing the failure mode for ambiguous or missing titles, which is the main residual gap.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List source IDs, titles and URLs') scoped to a notebook, so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like source_fulltext or notebook_summary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as source_fulltext for content retrieval or list_notebooks for discovery. The clause 'in an exact notebook ID or a unique title match' describes the parameter rather than the usage context, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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