source_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates that this is a read-only list operation, but does not mention any edge cases, authentication needs, or error behavior. The listed output fields add some context but not deep behavioral traits.

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, concise sentence: 'List sources with chunk counts, enrichment progress, and per-model cost.' It is front-loaded with the verb and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 simple list tool with an output schema and one parameter, the description gives the core purpose and return fields. However, it omits the notebook context and does not clarify how this tool relates to siblings like source_status, making it only partially complete.

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%, and the description does not mention the notebook_id parameter at all. The description says 'List sources' but fails to indicate that sources are scoped to a specific notebook, which is a required parameter. This leaves the agent without meaningful guidance on parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'sources' and details what is included (chunk counts, enrichment progress, per-model cost). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like source_add or source_delete, which have different actions.

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?

The description implies usage (when you want to see sources with their metrics) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like source_status. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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