squiggle_get_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses the verb 'list', which implies a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate and not misleading.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides immediate usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (prediction model sources) and how to use the results (with tips and ladder tools). It is complete for its simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the return value (source ids) and how to use them, which compensates for the lack of output schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 tool lists prediction model sources contributing to Squiggle, with specific examples (Squiggle, MoS, FiveThirtyEight). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like squiggle_get_tips by explaining that the returned ids are used with tips and ladder tools.

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 explicitly says to use the returned ids with tips and ladder tools, providing clear guidance on when this tool is needed. It implies a prerequisite relationship without stating alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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