list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that it lists all sources and their categories, but does not mention potential limitations, whether it is read-only, or how the data is returned. For a simple list operation this may be adequate, but more detail would be helpful.

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 communicates the purpose and scope without any filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and clearly structured.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema (which the description need not explain), this one-sentence description is complete. It fully explains what the tool does and is appropriate for the simple complexity of this listing operation.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description appropriately focuses on the action and result rather than parameter details. Since there are no parameters, there is nothing more to explain, and the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('every available data source') and the scope (including the category it serves). This distinguishes it from the sibling search tools, which are for finding specific papers, code, trends, etc., not for enumerating all sources.

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 the usage context: when you need to enumerate all available data sources rather than search for specific content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that the intended use is clear.

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