source_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is AI-generated and returns specific output formats, but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only or mutating, authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, the second documents the parameter, and the third describes the return format. No wasted words 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, AI-generated output), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter meaning, and return format. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values extensively. However, it lacks behavioral context that would be important for safe usage.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'source_id: Source UUID' clarifies this is a unique identifier for a source. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates. However, it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules for the UUID.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get AI-generated source summary with keyword chips.' It specifies the action ('Get'), resource ('source'), and output characteristics ('summary with keyword chips'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'notebook_describe' or 'source_list_drive', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to sibling tools like 'source_list_drive' or 'notebook_describe'. The only implied usage is needing a source UUID, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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