list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Lista' implies a read-only operation and it transparently discloses the returned fields, including failure errors and the generation of a short abstract for long sources. It does not, however, state permissions, pagination, or ordering behavior, so behavioral coverage is only partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the purpose before the parenthetical field list. The enumeration is somewhat long but every item is informative, so it earns its place with little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still usefully clarifies the 'abstract' field's purpose and its connection to read_file. For a parameterless read tool this is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around ordering or scope limits.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's field enumeration describes outputs rather than parameters, adding no parameter meaning beyond the empty schema, but no compensation is needed for a parameterless tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('todas las fuentes scrapeadas') with clear scope, and enumerates the returned fields (url, download/check timestamps, last error, .md path, title, abstract). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_vault, list_skills, and list_connections, which cover different resources.

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 a workflow by noting the 'abstract' field exists 'para decidir si leerla entera con read_file', effectively pointing to the read_file follow-up. However, it never states explicitly when to call this tool versus alternatives such as search_knowledge or list_vault, leaving usage to inference.

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