list_audit_sources

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds beyond it: it discloses that results include readability status and row counts, and reveals the underlying on-disk path pattern. It does not describe failure modes or error handling on unreadable DBs, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the [READ] tag and resource front-loaded, followed by the when-to-use directive. No redundant or filler content; every clause conveys actionable information.

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 zero-param, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output content (readability/row counts), and call ordering. It could note the output shape more concretely, but it is complete enough to invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so description-level parameter semantics are not applicable and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about arguments needs clarifying.

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) plus resource (sibling audit DBs) and even names the concrete artifact path pattern (~/.<tool>-aiops/audit.db). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_bundles and list_frameworks by scoping to audit DB sources, and the [READ] tag reinforces the action.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first to see which governed AIops tools' trails are available as compliance evidence,' giving clear sequencing and intent. It does not name an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of the top tier, but the entry-point guidance is unambiguous.

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