list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool uses the metadata command, returns a dictionary with status and data (sources array, count). However, it does not mention permissions, performance implications, or whether the operation is read-only, which would be helpful for a discovery tool.

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-structured with clear sections (intro, use cases, response format). It is informative but somewhat lengthy with bullet points; some sentences could be trimmed without losing meaning. Overall efficient for the content provided.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its use cases, and the response format. It could enhance completeness by briefly contrasting with sibling tools, but it is sufficient for a simple discovery tool.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to describe. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: to discover and enumerate all available data sources using the metadata command. It distinguishes from siblings like list_indexes and list_sourcetypes by focusing on data sources as origin points (log files, network streams, etc.), and lists specific use cases.

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 explicit use cases (data discovery, troubleshooting, planning, etc.) that guide when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it to alternative tools like list_indexes or get_metadata, which limits the guidance slightly.

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