query_generic_source

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the tool is a config-templated REST query, but does not state whether it is read-only, how pagination/cursor works, what the response looks like, or what failures/errors may occur. Too much behavior is left undisclosed for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the critical usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

The description covers purpose and tool selection but leaves essential invocation context missing: parameter semantics, cursor/pagination behavior, expected request shape, and return format. With no annotations and no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently on its first attempt.

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% and the description provides no explanation of source, params, start, end, or cursor. The params object is open-ended (additionalProperties: true), so an agent has no idea what keys or value formats to supply. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 action ('Query') and a specific resource ('a source declared in adapters.yaml'), plus the mechanism ('config-templated REST call'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_generic_sources and makes its scope unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use ONLY when no vendor MCP (Datadog/Splunk/Loki/etc.) already covers this source' and tells the agent to prefer connected MCPs first. This is direct, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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