get_page_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out exactly what comes back (source memory ids enriched with title, content, type, space), which matters because there is no output schema. It says nothing about result limits or ordering, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is fetched and what it contains, followed by the one operational fact needed to call it. No repetition of annotation or schema content.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and id provenance. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and the schema already explains that page_id is opaque, non-URL, and returns distilled source memories. The description nevertheless contributes provenance the schema lacks — that the id comes from the `stale_pages` block in distill output — which is the practical question an agent has here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Fetch the source memories of a page") and defines the resource precisely as the memory ids the page was distilled from. The return payload is enumerated (title, content, type, space). It does not explicitly contrast with near siblings such as page_basis or read_page, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states the concrete usage context: the /distill skill calls this on the stale-page refresh path after reading the page id from the `stale_pages` block in distill output. That is genuine when-to-use guidance. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are given, so it isn't a 5.

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