Source List

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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covered by annotations, the description goes further and explains a non-obvious behavior: drive_status_label is a separate axis that can show deleted/inaccessible/syncing while status_label stays "ready", meaning answers may be stale. It also flags that status=error returns a broken import's ghost row. It omits pagination behavior and any auth/rate-limit notes, keeping it short of 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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then organized by parameter/topic in short paragraphs. Dense but every sentence carries information; the inline code formatting makes it scan well without wasted preamble.

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, yet the description still maps the detail modes to concrete field sets and explains the two status axes. The only real gap is pagination semantics for limit/offset, which leaves an agent guessing about result windows.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains ``detail`` (full vs compact and the exact fields returned), ``status`` (matching status_label with the error case), ``label`` (name or ID, composes with status), and that ``notebook`` accepts a name or ID. It says nothing about ``limit`` or ``offset``, leaving two of six parameters fully undocumented.

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 ("List a notebook's sources") and clarifies the key identifier accept (name or ID). It is instantly distinguishable from source_read/source_delete, but it never contrasts itself with the near-identical sibling source_list_play_books, so a small amount of sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing purpose plus conditional hints ("Pass ``status`` to list only...", "Pass ``label``..."). However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no guidance on choosing between this and source_list_play_books or source_read, and no mention of pagination workflow.

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