get_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing and names the returned data, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or size limits for large manual sets.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact bulleted usage list. Slightly verbose in the 'Use this tool when the user wants to:' framing, but no sentence is wasted.

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, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent gets back (manuals plus chunk counts, page ranges, chapters). Only the fetch mechanics remain unspecified.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not need to.

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 states a specific verb ('Get a list') and resource ('indexed reference manuals') and even enumerates the returned fields (chunk counts, page ranges, detected chapters). It is clearly distinct from a search operation, but it never names the sibling search_manual to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Three explicit 'when to use' scenarios are given (discovering available manuals, seeing covered topics, understanding documentation structure). This is clear positive guidance, though it offers no exclusions or a direct pointer to search_manual for the actual querying task.

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