List configured sources

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope (all groups, all sources) and including both regular and collector sources, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, leaving some gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes all essential information concisely.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and its scope. However, it lacks details on the 'server' parameter, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool with parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not mention the 'server' parameter at all. With one parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline is 3 due to the schema's existence, but no additional semantic value is provided.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'JSON describing all configured Stream and Edge sources in all groups in the Cribl deployment', specifying both scope (all groups) and types (regular input sources and collector sources like S3, REST, database). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on sources rather than breakers, destinations, groups, etc.

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 usage for retrieving source configurations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_destinations or list_pipelines. It provides context about what's included but lacks explicit guidance on when/when-not to use it or mention of specific alternatives.

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