commune_france_get_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of exposing behavior. It indicates a read-only listing operation and says nothing about destructive effects or hidden complexity, which is acceptable for a simple list tool. However, it lacks any detail about the response shape, size, or possible edge cases, though these are not critical for such a straightforward call.

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 sentence that begins with the action word 'List' and then specifies the exact resource and context. Every word contributes, there is no redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter tool.

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?

Given the lack of parameters and an output schema, the description is contextually sufficient: the agent knows the call returns a list of curated sources used by this MCP. It does not describe the precise format of the returned list, but that is a minor omission for such a lightweight tool.

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 and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify. The description adds no specifics because none are needed; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 the concrete verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'curated sources used by this MCP,' so the tool's object and action are clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the resource type (sources) is evidently different from commune-related operations, making the purpose understandable.

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?

No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives is given. The intended usage—retrieve the list of sources for the MCP—is implied from the description and the tool's name, but there is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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