source_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'Read-only,' reinforcing that. Beyond annotations, it discloses the mechanism ('by re-hashing the files') and the purpose of filters ('for stale source-cache triage'). This adds meaningful context about how the tool behaves without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences plus a one-word safety indicator. The main action is front-loaded, usage guidance follows, and every phrase earns its place. No fluff 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?

For a simple read-only tool with three optional boolean parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter rationale. It is self-contained and gives the agent enough to decide when to call and what to expect, especially with annotations supporting the safety profile.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter meaning by connecting 'changed/missing filters' to the tool's purpose ('for stale source-cache triage'), explaining why you'd use those flags. It does not repeat schema descriptions but adds operational context.

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 and resource: 'Check whether recorded source conclusions are unchanged, changed, or missing by re-hashing the files.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like load_context and task_audit by focusing on stale-source checks via re-hashing. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call when you need a full stale-source check beyond what load_context already showed; do not repeat it when a recent load_context, task_audit, or status check answered the question.' This states both when to use and when not to use, naming alternative tools and providing a clear decision rule.

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