list_knowledge_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool lists source classes and chunk counts and explicitly notes that it does NOT return chunk text—a key behavioral limitation. This is adequate for a read-only listing operation, though it doesn't mention any other side effects or prerequisites.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It conveys the main purpose and a key limitation efficiently, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

While the output schema provides return structure, the description gives enough context for such a simple tool with no parameters. It doesn't define what 'source classes' exactly means, but the sibling tool names and the idea of knowledge sources provide adequate context. The omission of chunk text is explicitly addressed.

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 are zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds meaningful context about the output (source classes and chunk counts) and the exclusion of chunk text, which helps the agent understand what the tool offers despite having no inputs to configure.

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 names the resource ('knowledge sources') with a clear output scope ('source classes and chunk counts'). The clarification 'without returning chunk text' differentiates it from the sibling search_knowledge tool, which likely returns chunk contents.

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 its use for obtaining an overview of sources without chunk text, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like search_knowledge or rag_status. There is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance.

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