qradar_list_log_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string with protocol types, status, last event times) and mentions filtering/pagination. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or error handling. The return format detail adds value, but a few more behavioral traits (e.g., no side effects) could be stated.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clean Args section and a Returns section. Each sentence serves a purpose with no waste. The structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool is a simple listing operation with three optional parameters. The description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. With an output schema present and no annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without missing critical information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: filter_expr is explained with an example, limit and offset are described with defaults. Every parameter is covered meaningfully, going beyond the schema's type and default fields.

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 states 'List log sources registered in QRadar SIEM' with a specific verb (List), resource (log sources), and scope (QRadar SIEM). It also mentions optional filtering and pagination, clearly distinguishing it from the singular sibling 'qradar_get_log_source' and other list tools.

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 context by stating it lists log sources with filtering and pagination, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use this instead of get_log_source when you need multiple sources,' but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer when to use it.

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