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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: results are sorted by favorited time, newest first. However, it does not mention pagination semantics beyond the schema, nor does it state that this is a read-only operation; the gaps are moderate.

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, front-loaded sentence containing only the essential information: the resource, the action, and the result ordering. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 operation, the description covers the key context: what is listed and the result order, while the schema fully documents the parameters. Minor gaps remain because there is no output schema and no annotation, so the agent must infer the return shape and safety profile, but the tool is low complexity so this is largely acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only hints at the favoritedAt relationship through the sort-order mention, which is insufficient to raise the score above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'List favorited items from Glanceway,' which clearly states what the tool does. It also adds the sort ordering ('newest first'), making it distinct from the sibling tools that list all items or sources.

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 phrase 'List favorited items' — an agent can infer to use this when it needs a user's favorites. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over glanceway_list_items or glanceway_list_sources, nor any when-not-to-use context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful behavior beyond the schema: items are sorted by timestamp newest first. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, pagination behavior beyond the schema hints, or any other side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core resource and action are front-loaded, and the sort-order detail is the only added context, making every word earn its place.

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 tool with five optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is functional but thin. It tells the agent what the tool lists and the ordering, but it does not describe what an 'item' contains, when to prefer favorites, or any pagination semantics beyond the schema definitions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents; it only reinforces the timestamp relevance through the sort order statement.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List items from Glanceway sources' and adds the sort behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like glanceway_list_favorites, though the resource scope ('sources') hints at the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as glanceway_list_favorites or glanceway_list_sources. The description implies it is the tool for listing items, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or a preferred alternative.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'List' and the 'enabled' scoping, but it does not mention return shape, pagination, error cases, or authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part ('List', 'all enabled sources', 'configured in Glanceway') adds meaningful scoping.

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 parameterless listing tool, this description is essentially complete for invocation. The only minor gap is the absence of any note about the response format, which matters slightly because no output schema is present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the empty input schema fully covers parameter semantics; no parameter information is needed from the description. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List all enabled sources configured in Glanceway'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The resource word 'sources' also differentiates it from sibling tools that target items and favorites.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs the set of enabled Glanceway sources, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_items or list_favorites, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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