list_indexed_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists sources and their stats, but does not reveal any potential side effects, performance implications, or whether the listing is read-only. For a no-parameter tool, the description is minimal and leaves the agent without information about ordering, pagination, or potential cost.

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 that front-loads the action ('List all indexed sources') and specifies the scope and content. There is no extraneous information, and every word serves a purpose. It is optimally concise for a simple listing operation.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not explain the return format. The description states the tool lists all indexed sources with their stats, which is sufficient for a no-parameter tool. Minor details like whether the list is paginated or ordered are not addressed, but the output schema likely covers the structure. Overall, it is reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, and no additional semantic clarification is required.

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 clearly states the tool lists all indexed sources (repos, directories, files) with their stats. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_index_jobs or the indexing operations. The agent can unambiguously identify this as the listing tool for indexed 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. There is no direction like 'use this to view all indexed sources' or 'instead of X'. The agent must infer its purpose solely from the name and description.

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