list_audit_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It marks the operation as '[READ]' and describes the action, but lacks details on failure cases, permissions, or side effects. For a zero-parameter read operation, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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: the first delivers the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or vague language.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it specifies what is listed, the file location pattern, the information returned, and a usage hint. It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, but these are minor omissions for a non-destructive listing tool.

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 empty schema has 100% coverage. The description correctly adds no parameter info, meeting the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sibling audit DBs'), clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on enumeration of available audit sources, and explains what info is returned (readability + row counts). It also provides a usage hint, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states 'Call this first', indicating it is a preparatory step before other audit tools like query_audit_events. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, the directive is clear and sufficient for the tool's simple nature.

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