get-content-sources

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Get information...' but does not specify whether results are cached, if authentication is needed, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimal but not misleading.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with core purpose. No wasted words, every part contributes to understanding.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. It lacks details on output format or structure, but for its complexity level, it provides sufficient context.

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?

No parameters in input schema (100% coverage). Description adds meaning beyond schema by specifying the resource type and status aspect. Baseline 4 is appropriate as description compensates for absent parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves information about documentation sources and their status. The verb 'Get information' and resource 'documentation sources' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-components' which focus on different resources.

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 tool vs siblings like 'refresh-sources' or 'list-categories'. The purpose implies simple retrieval, but alternatives are not mentioned. Usage is somewhat implied by the tool's clear function.

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