her_list_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature by using 'List' and 'Returns metadata,' and details the output including content (query types, coverage, status) and format options (json/text). While it doesn't mention error conditions or pagination, for a simple listing tool this is adequate transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a concise return description, then formatted Args/Returns sections, and a final tip. Every section adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a simple 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, the parameter, and when to use it. The return format is described with examples of included metadata (query types, coverage, status), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 only provides a type string with a default, but the description explains the semantic meaning: 'Response format — "json" (default) or "text"'. It clarifies the allowed values and default, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. Additionally, there are no other parameters to explain.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement: 'List all registered heritage data sources and their capabilities.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like her_search_monuments or her_status, which focus on querying specific data. It also explains the return metadata, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'Tips for LLMs' section explicitly recommends using this tool 'before running queries' to discover available sources and their capabilities. This provides clear usage context. However, it doesn't mention any exclusions or when not to use it, which would merit a 5.

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