itsm_get_detection_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It conveys a read-only nature via 'Return' and describes the output, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or error cases. For a simple status check, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence ('Return status...') with no redundant words. It communicates purpose and scope efficiently.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough information to select and invoke it. It states what is returned ('status and last-scan results') and the scope ('all 5'). A richer description of output structure would be helpful, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this adequate.

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 is empty. The description explains that the tool covers 'all 5' sources, so no input selection is needed. This meets the baseline for no-parameter tools, as there is no parameter semantics to add.

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 action ('Return') and resource ('status and last-scan results for all 5 ITSM incident detection sources'). It is specific about the scope ('all 5') and distinguishes the tool from sibling ITSM tools that handle tickets or trigger actions.

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 usage guidance is given, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the description implies a read-only monitoring use case, and the tool's purpose is clear from the wording. It does not mention exclusions or point to alternative tools like itsm_trigger_detection.

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