contradiction.sources.list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a read-only operation and includes synchronization timestamps and claim counts, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, includes the read-only note, and ends with a practical usage directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 is complete for a read-only list tool with a rich output schema and full parameter documentation. It could have mentioned pagination behavior or default limit, but the schema already covers those. The usage context (before scans/sync) adds completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (type, limit, offset) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 registered external data source connectors and ingested source entities, with specific examples (document, website, github) and details like source IDs, timestamps, and claim counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on sources rather than conflicts, claims, or health.

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 says to use this tool to inspect available data sources before initiating scans or synchronization, which provides clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling names and the stated purpose make the usage context clear.

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