List Authorization Sources

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by disclosing that results are ordered and that the ordering is semantically meaningful ('the first source that returns allow or deny wins'). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavioral implications.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the critical detail about evaluation order front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters), the presence of a full output schema, and comprehensive annotations indicating a safe read-only operation, the description is complete. The only additional behavioral nuance (order matters) is included, so the agent has all needed context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 per the rubric the baseline score is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately does not attempt to document parameters that do not exist.

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 identifies the resource (authorization sources) and the key concept of evaluation order, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authz settings or rules. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' in the description itself, relying on the tool name/title for that, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 this tool is used to view authorization sources and emphasizes that order is critical for determining authorization outcomes, giving some contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other authz-related tools or provide exclusions, so it is only minimally viable.

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