List sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of transparency. The description states that it lists all sources with their kind, which implies a read-only query, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or describe any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function.

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 scope. Every word is relevant, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, clear output), the description provides sufficient context. The output schema presumably details the returned structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in depth. It fully explains the tool's purpose and scope, but could be slightly more explicit about the returned data if needed.

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 no parameters, and the schema shows an empty object, giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the tool lists 'all' sources, indicating there is no filtering parameter, which aligns with the schema. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing all sources (inputs) in OBS and including their kind. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_audio_sources (which specifically lists audio sources) and get_source (which retrieves a single source).

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 implies this is the general-purpose listing tool for all OBS sources, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like list_audio_sources or get_source. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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