list_sources

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

The description only says 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations, it provides no explicit safety guarantees or output details. It doesn't mention whether the response includes full details or just names, nor any rate limits or auth. For a simple list, this is adequate but lacks added behavioral transparency.

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 entire description is one sentence, 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler and every word adds value.

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, no annotations), the description sufficiently explains what it lists and the categories. It doesn't overpromise or leave major gaps. A slightly more detailed note about the return structure could push it higher, but for a listing tool, this is adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds context about source categories, which is helpful.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the specific resource ('job sources'), with an added parenthetical defining what those sources include ('ATS boards + community feed'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_jobs', which searches jobs rather than listing sources.

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 implies the use case: when an agent needs to know the server's configured job sources. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, but the purpose itself differentiates it from 'search_jobs'. Because there are no exclusions or prerequisites, it falls at 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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