list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return' implies a non-mutating read and 'all sources' states the scope, but the description does not mention permissions, ordering, pagination, or potential side effects. It is adequate for a simple read operation but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately, which is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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 output schema likely covers return-value structure, so the description does not need that detail. However, the sole required parameter 'path' is left unexplained, and there is no guidance on when to invoke this tool beyond its obvious purpose, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the required 'path' parameter at all. While 'the document' hints at what path refers to, an agent cannot determine the expected path format, scope, or what exactly to pass.

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 ('Return') and resource ('all sources') with a clear scope ('stored in the document'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_source, remove_source, and list_footnotes by resource and operation type.

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?

Usage context is only implied: if an agent needs all sources, this is the obvious tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like import_references or list_footnotes, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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