vaglio_sources

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the conceptual behavior (roles and failover) but does not disclose operational traits like read-only nature, external calls, or safety. For a simple catalogue tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 compact with two short paragraphs. The first sentence is front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds unique information (catalogue, role explanation, failover). No wasted words.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's value and output concept. It lacks explicit mention of output format (list, dictionary) but the role context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the output structure (roles). Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the role explanation justifies a 5.

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 clearly states the tool is a 'catalogue of sources' explaining what each is good for, with specific roles like finders, opener, readers. This verb-resource combination is precise and distinguishes it from siblings which likely handle different actions (search, read, etc.).

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 explains that roles are not interchangeable and selecting by role makes failover work, implying the tool helps choose the right source for a task. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus siblings, and no negative guidance is provided.

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