List Undeclared Sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioural burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and the text conveys the semantic weight of the results (hidden runtime inputs), but it says nothing about scope of the scan, whether results are scoped to a run/snapshot, determinism, or ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, definition front-loaded before the significance note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description supplies the conceptual meaning of the entries. For a no-argument listing tool this is close to complete, with only scope/ordering context missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail that does not exist.

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 gives a precise verb+resource: 'List assets the runtime reads that the catalog never declared.' That is a specific, self-contained definition of an undeclared input. It does not, however, contrast itself with the adjacent concept in the sibling list_phantom_edges, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: calling out that these are 'usually the most consequential findings' signals priority/triage intent. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling list_phantom_edges that covers the adjacent finding category.

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