list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone. It indicates a read-only listing operation but does not disclose auth requirements, network access, or side effects. For a list tool, the behavior is straightforward, but the description carries the full burden and remains minimal.

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?

One sentence, directly states the tool's purpose with no filler.

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 description names the output concept ('indexing status') but no output schema exists. It's sufficient for a simple list, though it omits details like whether pagination or filtering is needed. Given the low complexity, it's reasonably complete.

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 is empty and fully covers semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the 4 baseline for zero-param tools.

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 clear verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('configured reference repositories') and adds detail ('their indexing status'), distinguishing it from sibling file-level tools like list_source_files and get_file_tree.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, but the phrase 'configured reference repositories' provides clear context. Absence of exclusions or alternative tool references lowers the score.

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