discover_sources

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, and the description adds the behavioral trait of invalidating stale derived records. However, it does not disclose side effects, scope, or reversibility, so the added context is limited.

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 description is a single sentence with no filler words. Both clauses add meaningful information, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain the tool's role in the audit pipeline or the consequences of 'invalidating' records. This is a process-oriented tool with opaque side effects, so more context is needed.

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 for the single parameter audit_id is 100%, and the description adds nothing beyond the schema's 'Identifier returned by create_audit'. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema covers parameters fully.

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 uses specific verbs ('refresh', 'invalidate') and resources ('bounded project inventory', 'derived stale records'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is not a tautology and implies a distinct operation from sibling audit tools, though the jargon is not fully unpacked.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool or how it relates to siblings. The schema mentions audit_id comes from create_audit, but the description itself provides no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer placement in the workflow.

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