list_sources

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly ('List'), the allowlist boundary, and the pagination model, which are genuinely useful behavioral facts. It does not cover permissions, error behavior for out-of-prefix paths, or result ordering/limits.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter notes, and no filler. The per-parameter line format is scannable, though it reads more like schema annotation than a structured description.

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?

This is a low-risk two-parameter listing tool with an output schema, so return values need not be described. Prefix scoping and pagination are covered; what 'allowlisted' means operationally and how out-of-scope paths are rejected are the main remaining gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'path' is explained as a subfolder relative to DP_S3_PREFIX or an absolute key under it, and 'next_token' is tied to a prior list_sources call. Only the empty-string default behavior is left implicit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List folders and files') scoped to an explicit boundary ('under the allowlisted S3 prefix'). That is enough to distinguish it from the entity/document search siblings without opening either schema, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implied by the prefix scoping, and pagination guidance is given ('next_token: pagination token from a previous list_sources call'), which tells the agent how to continue iterating. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_docs or get_document, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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