list_source_audits

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

No annotations are present, and the description only restates the operation rather than disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether pagination or limits apply, how 'compact workflow counts' are derived, or what the response shape is.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrases. It states the action and resource directly and omits unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the high-level return content (source audits and workflow counts) but leaves the exact structure, ordering, and meaning of 'compact workflow counts' unclear. Adequate for a no-argument invocation, but not fully complete for interpreting results.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for either the schema or the description to document.

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 a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('source audits') plus an additional summary object ('compact workflow counts'). The plural form distinguishes it from the singular get_source_audit and from create_source_audit among the siblings.

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 plural 'List' implies this tool is appropriate for enumerating source audits rather than retrieving one (get_source_audit) or creating one (create_source_audit), but it does not explicitly state when to choose it or name an alternative. No exclusion or comparison is provided.

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