List Sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the underlying command ('metadata'), framing the operation as a read-only discovery, and detailing the response structure (dictionary with status, data.sources sorted array, and count). However, it doesn't describe error handling, empty-result behavior, potential performance cost of the metadata command, or permission requirements.

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 well-organized with clear sections (overview, use cases, response format) and scannable bullet points. The key information is front-loaded. It's slightly verbose with the five-item use-case list, but every section earns its place and the response-format section is genuinely useful.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema or annotations, this description covers all bases: it explains what the tool does, why it exists, the exact response structure, and typical use cases. The inline response format effectively substitutes for a formal output schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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, which sets a baseline of 4 per the rubric. There's nothing more the description needs to explain about parameters, and the schema is vacuous (empty object), so no information is missing.

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+resource: 'Discover and enumerate all available data sources from the configured Splunk instance using the metadata command.' It clearly scopes to 'all indexes' and defines what sources are (origin points like log files, network streams). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from conceptually similar siblings like list_indexes or list_sourcetypes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides a clear list of use cases (data discovery, troubleshooting missing sources, retention planning, security analysis) that tell an agent when to invoke this tool. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusion criteria — it never says when NOT to use it or how it differs from similar list_* siblings — so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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