source_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'AI-generated' which hints at non-deterministic behavior, but doesn't disclose other important traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 well-structured and concise. It opens with the core purpose, then clearly sections off Args and Returns with bullet-like formatting. Every sentence earns its place - no wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 has an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. It mentions the key outputs (summary in markdown with bold keywords, keywords list) which provides good context. For a single-parameter tool with output information, this is quite complete, though it could benefit from more behavioral context.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema. The schema only shows source_id as a string with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies it's a 'Source UUID' and explains what the parameter represents. Since there's only one parameter and the description provides its semantic meaning, this earns a high score despite the low schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get AI-generated source summary with keyword chips.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('source summary'), and key features ('AI-generated', 'keyword chips'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like source_get_content or source_list_drive, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to source_get_content (which might retrieve raw content) or other source-related tools. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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