list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context by specifying that only 'searchable official/built-in' sources are included and that URLs are returned. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it discuss auth or side effects, though 'shows' implies non-mutation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 zero-parameter signature and existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by hinting at its role in the broader workflow (e.g., discovering sources before searching), but it adequately defines what the tool does for invocation.

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, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds meaning by clarifying the tool's scope (listing sources) without needing to describe parameter syntax.

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 'shows' and the resource ('searchable official/built-in documentation sources and source URLs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_docs, sync_sources, and search_icons by focusing exclusively on listing available sources.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention search_docs for searching within these sources, sync_sources for updating them, or any exclusion criteria. It only states what the tool does without situational context.

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