list_security_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only 'Force refresh' and the endpoint, but does not explain cache behavior, output characteristics, or preconditions beyond what annotations already convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose statement. The endpoint and args list are directly relevant, with no filler, though the terseness contributes to semantic gaps.

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 endpoint with two optional parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description is nearly adequate. The main missing context is sibling differentiation and clearer parameter value semantics, but the endpoint path and basic parameter descriptions provide enough grounding for most calls.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter explanations. It does describe both parameters ('source identifier with an included prefix', 'refresh: Force refresh'), but both are terse and leave value formats or accepted inputs ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get Source Connection Information') and gives the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not distinguish itself from similarly-named siblings like list_resources or list_resources_2, and the tool name 'list_security_resources' suggests a different domain than source connections.

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 an agent should call this when it needs source connection information, but it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. Given the large sibling set of list_* tools, the agent is left to infer selection from purpose alone.

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