source_list_drive

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 'freshness status' which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are needed, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by usage guidance and parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second provides context, and the third explains the parameter. No wasted words.

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 (which handles return values), 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage that the description compensates for, and clear purpose/guidance, the description is reasonably complete. However, the lack of behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotations prevents a perfect score.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'notebook_id', the description adds crucial semantics by specifying it's a 'Notebook UUID'. This compensates for the schema gap by clarifying the parameter's format and purpose, though it doesn't explain where to find this UUID or provide examples.

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 'sources', specifying they include 'types and Drive freshness status'. It distinguishes from siblings like source_describe or source_get_content by focusing on listing with status. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from source_sync_drive beyond usage guidance.

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 explicitly states 'Use before source_sync_drive to identify stale sources', providing clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative. This directly addresses agent decision-making by linking to a sibling tool for follow-up actions.

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