source_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects, authorization needs, or what happens when sources are missing. Insufficient for a safe agent invocation.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It is efficient and front-loaded, though it could benefit from a second sentence to clarify the json parameter or return format.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, the meaning of 'unchanged', or the json parameter, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'changed' and 'missing' as filters, but does not clarify the 'json' parameter. This leaves one of three parameters undocumented, partially compensating for schema gaps.

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 checks source conclusions and lists three outcomes (unchanged, changed, missing). It gives a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like task_status or diff, though the resource is distinct.

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 mentions using filters for stale source-cache triage, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use, offering minimal guidance for tool selection.

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