eds_da_list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It adds the token requirement but does not disclose whether listing is recursive, what the response format is, or any error handling. The word 'List' implies read-only, but other behavioral aspects are absent.

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, both informative and directly actionable. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes essential authentication context, with zero wasted words.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the input semantics are clear. However, there is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value; it does not. Also, whether the listing includes subfolders recursively is ambiguous. Adequate but with 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?

The schema description for the single 'path' parameter is complete (100% coverage), including an example and default behavior. The description's mention of 'under a path' adds little beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'List', the resource 'authored source documents and folders', and the context 'in Document Authoring (DA) under a path'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eds_list_pages, which pertains to published pages, and other DA tools.

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?

Provides clear context: lists under a path, with optional path parameter and root default. It also mentions the required token. However, it does not explicitly direct when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions, but the context is strong enough for a focused list tool.

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