Source List Drive

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool lists sources and reports Drive freshness status, implying a read-only listing operation, but it does not explicitly discuss side effects, auth requirements, or performance implications of the freshness checks.

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 the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value: the first states what the tool does, and the second provides actionable usage context.

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?

Given a 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description covers the main contextual needs: what is listed and when to use it. It is slightly incomplete only because the absence of annotations leaves minimal room to clarify side effects or auth expectations.

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 both notebook_id and skip_freshness are already fully explained in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming freshness status, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb 'List' and identifies the resource and scope: sources with types and Drive freshness status. The second sentence explicitly ties it to source_sync_drive, making the tool's role and distinction from the sync sibling clear.

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 explicitly says 'Use before source_sync_drive to identify stale sources,' giving agents a clear precondition and use case. This is strong guidance on when to call this tool versus the related sync tool.

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