mindbase_gather_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns paths, sizes, and mtimes, which is useful, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, whether there are limits, or how 'last build' is tracked.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the most important scoping rule ('modified since the last build') appears up front. It compactly states the resource, filter, return fields, and intended caller.

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?

The description satisfies mostly all the agent needs for a simple list tool even without an output schema and annotations: it names inputs, expected outputs, and a clear use case. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, ordering, or pagination, but the simple return shape makes those less critical.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented and the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'modified since the last build (or since a given ISO date)' loosely echoes the since parameter, but it adds no concrete syntax or edge-case semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('contributor + research files') plus the modification-time filter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_recent or list_review_cards, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Used by /mb:build to know what to synthesize' provides a clear intended use context. It does not mention exclusions or when alternatives like list_recent should be preferred, but the /mb:build tie-in gives an agent enough situational guidance.

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