detect_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only detection operation but doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't modify data, nor does it disclose error behavior for invalid URLs, redirects, or network failures. The phrase 'auto-detect' is too vague to inform the agent of potential side effects or failure modes.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence clearly communicates the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise.

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 tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the core purpose and implied output, but it omits important context like whether a valid URL is required, what happens on failure, and whether the operation is safe (read-only). For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves notable gaps.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for the 'url' parameter. The description reinforces that the tool works 'from a URL' but adds no additional format, validation, or usage details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 the specific verb 'detect' and clearly identifies the resource as 'source type and feed URL' from a URL. This distinguishes it from sibling source tools like list_sources and get_source which operate on existing 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this is useful before adding a source or that it should be used only for URLs not yet in the system. There is no 'use when' or 'instead of' context.

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