list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds no behavioral context such as result ordering, completeness, or whether the sync time reflects failed syncs. Its content is largely restated by the existing output schema.

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?

It is a single short clause with no wasted words, but it is a fragment that omits the action verb and therefore does not front-load the tool's purpose. Brevity here comes at the cost of specification.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it spends its only sentence doing roughly that instead of stating the operation. For a zero-parameter read tool the definition is minimally sufficient, but a single clause like 'List all indexed sources and their sync status' would close the gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless call.

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 names the resource ('Indexed sources') and the data attached to it, but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so an agent must infer from the tool name that this lists sources. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling ticket tools beyond the obvious subject difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools (similar_tickets, precedents_for, get_ticket), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only implied usage is discovery of what content is indexed.

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