screenstudio_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail (what categories of sources are listed) but says nothing about freshness, scoping or how identifiers should be consumed downstream.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately enumerates the return categories. There is no padding or restatement of the tool name.

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 no-argument discovery tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description is close to sufficient, and its enumeration partially compensates for the missing output schema. It could be strengthened by naming how the returned IDs feed sibling tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is an empty object and there is nothing further for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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 ('List') and enumerates the exact resource types returned (capturable windows, display IDs, microphones, cameras), so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings like screenstudio_source_frames or screenstudio_desktop_inspect.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as screenstudio_source_frames, which also deals with sources. The agent must infer that this is a prerequisite enumeration step for discovery, but nothing in the text confirms that.

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