查询来源图谱

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it queries a persistent Registry, but does not disclose details like pagination behavior (though cursor is in schema) or whether results are snapshots. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It is efficient and easy to scan, though it could include a little more detail without becoming verbose.

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 (a filtered list operation), the lack of an output schema description is fine, but the missing parameter documentation and lack of guidance on pagination make it borderline. The description provides the basic purpose but not enough for an agent to fully understand filtering parameters and pagination behavior.

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%, and the description fails to explain any parameter semantics beyond mentioning lifecycle and verification_state as filters. The schema has 6 parameters including limit, cursor, city_code, and province_code, but the description does not clarify their purpose or format (e.g., that city_code is a string, or how cursor works). This is a significant gap.

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 tool lists persisted sources in a Registry, with filtering by lifecycle or verification state. It identifies the resource (source Registry) and the action (list/query), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_source_graph or source_coverage, though the name and description imply a different scope.

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 mentions filtering by lifecycle or verification state, which implies when to use (e.g., when needing to browse sources by state). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives like source_coverage or get_source_graph, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for when to list sources.

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