darknet_list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations by disclosing what the response contains (per-source configuration status, required API keys, available tools), which matters because no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the one action and its three-part payload. No filler, no repetition of the name or annotations.

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 parameterless, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers what the call returns and why it exists, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of saying when to prefer it over darknet_readiness or how to act on missing API keys.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty input.

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 (List) and resource (darknet-mcp data sources) and enumerates the payload: configuration status, required API keys, and available tools. An agent can tell this is a discovery/introspection tool, though it never distinguishes itself from sibling darknet_readiness, which likely also reports configuration status.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as darknet_investigate or darknet_readiness. The usage is only weakly implied by the word 'List' and the discovery framing.

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