List knowledge sources

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world hints, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: required scopes (knowledge:read, luca:read), data sensitivity (redacted), and the underlying operation. This is meaningful context beyond structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is dense and useful. The trailing metadata lines (operation, scopes, sensitivity, idempotency) are structured but the 'Does not require idempotency' line partly restates the annotation's idempotentHint, a minor redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, scope requirements, sensitivity, and workspace-override behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that workspaceId/workspaceSlug override the default workspace configured by environment. That is real added semantic value over the bare 'optional override' schema text.

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?

It states a specific verb (List) and resource (content sources the coach has connected), enriched with concrete examples (Notion, Google Docs, a website, an Instagram bio) and the sync state returned. It also distinguishes itself from the adjacent connect action by noting 'Connecting a new source is app-only; this lists what is already there.'

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 gives clear context for when this applies and explicitly rules out the connect flow ('app-only'), but it never names the sibling tools (e.g. knowledge_sources_sync, knowledge_sources_disconnect) that an agent could confuse it with. Usage is clear but alternatives aren't enumerated.

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