emu_list_syslog_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists inventory but doesn't reveal anything about the nature of the data (e.g., whether it's static, filtered, or includes detailed metadata). No mention of potential side effects or requirements. The description adds minimal context beyond the name of the operation.

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 short phrase, which is concise. However, it lacks structuring that would aid scanning, such as front-loading what the tool does or why it matters. It's under-specified but not overly verbose. Every word is functional, but there's no added value beyond the name.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't elaborate on the type of data returned or any nuances. Given the simplicity, a 3 seems fair: it completes the essential task but lacks richness that might help an agent understand the output format or filtering options.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description is sufficient since there's nothing to clarify. The word 'canonical' hints at the nature of the list but doesn't add parameter-related value.

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 'List canonical syslog source inventory' clearly states the action (list) and resource (syslog source inventory). It is distinct enough from siblings like emu_list_syslog_events, which lists events rather than sources. However, the term 'canonical' is slightly vague and could mean the authoritative list, but it doesn't cause confusion with siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings like emu_list_syslog_events and emu_get_syslog_publisher exist, there's no mention of when to prefer this tool. The context is implied (listing sources), but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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