list_metax_sources

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful context: it reads a local SQLite index, never fetches URLs, never modifies the index, and warns that all retrieved text must be treated as untrusted. This goes beyond the structured annotations and materially informs safe invocation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers a necessary safety caveat. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It states the key behavioral boundaries and does not omit anything an agent needs for a parameterless listing operation.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than nonexistent arguments.

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 a clear action and resource: 'List indexed source provenance and counts.' It immediately distinguishes this from the sibling tools (search/get) by virtue of being a list operation, though it does not explicitly name the siblings or contrast them.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The safety caveat is general behavior, not selection guidance, so the agent is left to infer that this is for listing sources versus searching or fetching documents.

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