rag_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'List all' only weakly implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, result size limits, or whether the listing can be large, which matters for a tool that enumerates an entire index.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the resource being listed is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is on the thin side rather than maximally informative.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return shape and any volume/pagination behavior unspecified. It mentions GitHub URLs but not the other fields an agent would receive.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter 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 and resource ('List all indexed sources') and adds a content detail ('with their GitHub URLs') that helps an agent predict the output shape. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like rag_search or rag_stats, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus rag_search, rag_chunk, or list_documents. The description simply asserts what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer that this is the enumeration endpoint for browsing the index.

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