agora_knowledge_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses scope ('allowlisted') and a key constraint (registry metadata, not a fetch permission), but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or what the 'freshness contracts' contain per entry. It adds real context beyond the name but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the disambiguating warning. Every clause earns its place.

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 needn't be described, and the purpose plus the metadata-vs-fetch caveat cover the essentials. The gap is the undocumented `domain` filter, which is the one input an agent could set and now has no guidance on.

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?

There is one optional parameter, `domain`, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description does not explain that the list can be scoped by domain or what form a domain takes, so the single parameter is entirely undocumented in both structured data and prose.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List allowlisted Knowledge Fabric sources and freshness contracts'), which is concrete and distinguishable from content-retrieval siblings like agora_knowledge_fetch or agora_knowledge_search. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the phrase 'not permission to fetch arbitrary URLs' implicitly delineates it from the fetch tools.

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 line 'This is source registry metadata, not permission to fetch arbitrary URLs' gives a clear when-not signal, warning the agent away from treating this as a fetch tool. However, it never says when to use this instead of agora_knowledge_search, agora_source_audit, or agora_list_knowledge_objects, so the routing guidance remains implied.

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