cyclone_get_sources

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only listing operation ('List...'), but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or has any rate limits. Since it's a simple list, the risk is low, but transparency is lacking without explicit statements about behavior.

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 directly states the purpose and lists examples. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no fluff 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey what is returned. It clearly states that it lists sources, implying a list of source identifiers or names. It does not specify the exact format (e.g., array of strings), but for a simple listing operation, this is sufficient and complete within context.

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 input schema has no parameters (empty properties), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but given there are zero parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameters.

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 tool lists official and secondary sources used by this MCP server for South-West Indian Ocean cyclone monitoring. It mentions specific sources (RSMC La Réunion, Météo-France, vigilance pages, GDACS, API portal), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other cyclone data operations.

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 indicates the tool's scope (sources used by this server) and purpose (listing sources), which implicitly tells when to use it (when needing to know available sources). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the specificity of 'sources' and the mention of the server's usage provide adequate guidance.

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