list_network_connection_srcs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe what 'list' means operationally - whether this is a read-only operation, what format results come in, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the offset/limit parameters. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'network connection source' is, what data is returned, how results are structured, or any operational constraints. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output format.

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 mentions 'optional filtering by source and destination workloads' which corresponds to the 'filters' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 - the description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none, but also doesn't add significant value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'network connection sources', making the purpose specific and understandable. It also mentions optional filtering capabilities, which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_network_connections' or 'list_http_requests', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, specific contexts where this tool is appropriate, or how it differs from related tools like 'list_network_connections' or 'list_http_requests' that appear in the sibling list.

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