list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a non-destructive list operation and previews the output contents, but it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or whether the list is static or dynamically discovered. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant wording. Every phrase adds useful information about scope or output content.

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 zero-argument discovery tool, the description covers the purpose and gives a reasonable indication of the return content. It would be slightly more complete with an example status value or clarification of what 'parameters' includes, but the low complexity makes this definition sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully captures all input requirements. The mention of 'parameters' in the description refers to the output information about source types, not input arguments, so no additional input semantics are needed.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'data source types this server can open' and states the returned information (parameters and status). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_dataset_files and list_lsl_streams, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 wording implies this tool should be used when an agent needs to discover what data source types the server supports. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling should be preferred in related cases, leaving usage selection partly to inference.

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