source.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists raw sources, which is a read operation (no destruction, no mutation). It hints at pagination via parameters (limit, offset) but doesn't clarify pagination behavior (e.g., order, total count). It does not disclose what 'raw' means (e.g., unfiltered, unformatted) or whether the list is sorted. Adequate but not detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'List all raw sources ingested for a project.' This is concise and immediately communicates the action. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding a brief clarification about the 'raw' qualifier or the meaning of project_root vs project_id. Minimal waste, but room for one more sentence of value.

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 presence of sibling tools like source.search, source.get, and source.ingest, the description is incomplete for a tool with zero annotations and no output schema. It does not clarify what constitutes a 'raw source' versus a processed one, whether there is any indexing impact, or how pagination works. For a tool with 4 parameters and no schema coverage, more contextual detail is needed to compensate.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for all four parameters. The description only mentions raw sources and project, but doesn't elaborate on any parameter. limit, offset, project_id, and project_root are not explained in the description text. The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names alone (e.g., limit and offset are standard pagination). The description provides no added value beyond the schema, scoring a baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('raw sources ingested for a project'), which clearly identifies the tool's action and scope. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like source.ingest (which adds data) and source.search (which filters). The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the resource scope (raw sources) in a way that contrasts with other source tools, but it's sufficiently clear.

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 the tool is for browsing raw sources of a project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like source.search or source.get. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or exclusions. The tool description does not help the agent decide between this and sibling tools beyond the basic intent.

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