list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the output content (sources with status/health) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or if there are any rate limits, pagination, or caching behaviors. For a tool with no parameters and an output schema, more context on behavior would be helpful.

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 that is entirely front-loaded with the key information: 'list sources with functional status and scraper health.' No filler or redundant text.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description adequately covers the high-level purpose. It could be improved by noting that it returns all sources without filtering or ordering, but it is largely complete for a straightforward list operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not add information about parameters, but this is acceptable as there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate, though a brief statement that it lists all sources without filtering would improve clarity.

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 it lists sources and includes functional status and scraper health. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on events or individual scraper validation. However, it does not explicitly define what 'functional status' or 'scraper health' entail.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool names suggest different purposes (events, validation), but the description does not state when to prefer this tool or what scenarios are inappropriate.

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