list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the output content but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, safe, or whether it requires authentication. For a straightforward list operation, this is minimally adequate but could be improved with a clear 'read-only' indication.

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, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence states the action and output fields, and the second provides usage guidance and sibling distinction. No fluff or redundant 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output fields (jurisdiction, authorities, URLs, etc.) given the absence of an output schema. It could be slightly improved by mentioning if the list is exhaustive or paginated, but overall it is complete for a parameterless 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 schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the parameter space.

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 lists all data sources with provenance metadata, using a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'about' by noting that 'about' is for server statistics, making the 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 advises when to use this tool ('to understand where the data comes from and how current it is') and directs the agent to a specific alternative ('For server statistics, use about instead'). This provides clear context and differentiation.

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