list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only listing action and the scope of results, but it does not describe the output format, pagination behavior, or any limitations beyond the listed items.

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 front-loads the action and resource before enumerating the result contents. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and result scope. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves the precise return structure and any pagination behavior implicit, and it offers no guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 already fully documents the only parameter, 'limit', including its type and default. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as how the limit applies to the multiple output categories.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('indexed documentation sources, snapshot records, doc versions, and machine-readability status'). It is specific enough to distinguish itself from search/get tools, though it bundles several output categories into one sentence without explicit differentiation from a tool like get_documentation_map.

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 phrase 'List all indexed...' implies this is the tool for enumerating available sources rather than searching or retrieving content. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_docs or get_doc, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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