discover_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the search across databases and output format, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, nor mention authorization needs or rate limits. It adds some context but not full behavioral transparency.

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 somewhat long with emojis, multilingual content, and an Args/Returns section. It is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but could be slightly more concise. The emoji adds minor clutter.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description needn't explain return values in depth but does mention Returns: AssetRef format. It covers overall function, parameters, and examples, making it complete for a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters.

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%, so the description compensates well. It explains each parameter: query, doc_ids (限定搜尋的文件（不指定則搜尋所有文件）), include_kg (是否包含知識圖譜搜尋), limit (每類來源的最大結果數). Examples are provided, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: '資料來源探索' (data source discovery) that searches across multiple databases (Section, Figure, Table, Knowledge Graph) and returns AssetRef format for use in table_cite. It distinguishes from siblings like table_cite by specifying cross-database search and integration.

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 implies usage for finding data sources for table citations and gives examples. It mentions it can be used directly for table_cite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like document search tools.

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