list_experience_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool does NOT make source HTTP requests, which is a non-obvious trait that affects performance and data freshness. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, justifying a 4.

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 with clear verb and object. It contains no filler and immediately conveys the core purpose and a critical behavioral constraint. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema, annotations, and with 4 parameters but no required ones, the description, while brief, covers the essential distinguishing factor (no source HTTP requests). Combined with structured data, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool, though it lacks explicit alternative references.

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 low (25%), so the description should compensate by explaining parameter meanings beyond the schema. It does not; the description only mentions listing without network requests, leaving parameters like runnable_only and cursor unexplained. The schema provides some descriptions, but the low coverage means the description fails to add needed semantics, so a 2 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('registered official sources') plus a key constraint ('without making source HTTP requests'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like refresh_experience_sources, which likely perform network operations, and makes the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool: it lists registered sources without triggering source HTTP requests. This implies a preference for offline listing, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, the absence of network behavior is a strong usage indicator, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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