List sources

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and 'Read operation.' merely restates that. The one genuinely additive detail is that every source type is returned, including in-app connections like Notion or Google Drive, but pagination behavior and auth sensitivities are left to the schema.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Read operation.' is slightly redundant given readOnlyHint, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented optional params, the description covers what is enumerated and who can see it. It omits any note about the returned source shape or pagination semantics, but cursor/page_size documentation in the schema covers the mechanics.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The prose lightly echoes the scope enum ('personal sources, plus team and organization sources') and the source_type filter, but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already documents for the 6 optional parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the Company Brain sources') and clarifies the visibility scope (personal plus team/organization shared). An agent can tell this is the enumeration tool rather than a search or single-fetch tool, though it never names the siblings it is distinct from (list_brain_files, get_brain_source, search_brain).

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?

Usage is only implied by the enumeration framing plus the scope clause describing what is visible to the authenticated user. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so an agent must infer that search_brain and get_brain_source are the filtered/single-item counterparts.

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