source_describe

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral clarity. It discloses that the summary is AI-generated and returns markdown with bold keywords, indicating a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state it is safe or mention any required permissions.

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 extremely concise, with a one-line purpose followed by labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative, and the structure is front-loaded, allowing quick parsing.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what it does, its input, and its return type. It could mention that it's read-only, but that is inferred from 'Get'. Overall, it is sufficient for a single-purpose describe tool.

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 semantic value to the single parameter 'source_id' by explaining it is a 'Source UUID', which goes beyond the schema's mere 'type: string'. Since schema coverage is 0%, this context is essential and well-provided.

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 'Get AI-generated source summary with keyword chips', specifying the verb 'Get' and the resource 'source summary'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'source_add' or 'source_delete', which are for adding or deleting 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?

The description implies usage when needing a source summary, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool compared to alternatives. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool suggestions, relying on the tool name for differentiation.

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