source_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'AI-generated' hints at potential latency or cost, but it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only status, required permissions, or whether the source is modified. More transparency is needed.

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 concise and uses a clear structure with a purpose line and separate Args/Returns sections. It avoids waste but the format (docstring style) is slightly non-standard for MCP. Still, it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only, cost implications) and does not reference the output schema. It is complete enough for basic use but has gaps.

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?

The description adds an Args section explaining source_id as 'Source UUID' and details the return format (summary with **bold** keywords, keywords list). With 0% schema coverage, this provides meaningful context beyond the raw schema, compensating well.

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 'Get AI-generated source summary with keyword chips,' which clearly identifies the verb (Get) and resource (source summary). It distinguishes from siblings like source_get_content but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar 'describe' tools. The purpose is clear but could be sharper.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like source_get_content or source_list_drive. There is no discussion of prerequisites, usage context, or exclusions. The description only explains what it does, not when it should be chosen.

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