list_watched_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and behavior. 'List' implies a read operation, and 'all active' adds the behavioral constraint that inactive sources are excluded. However, it provides no details on return format, ordering, or pagination, leaving some gaps for a list tool.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word adds value, no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list operation, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies the resource (watched sources), the filter (active), and the types included. An output schema is absent, but for a basic list tool, this level of detail is adequate—though it could benefit from mentioning whether the returned items are just names or include metadata.

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, so the baseline is 4 as per guidelines. The description is not required to explain parameters, and the schema confirms no parameters exist.

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 ('List') and resource ('all active watched sources'), and explicitly enumerates the source types (X users, RSS feeds, YouTube channels). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_watched_source or scrape_watched_sources, which perform different actions.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for listing all active watched sources, which is the primary use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous and siblings are distinct actions, so context is clear without exclusions.

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