list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (type, location, chunk count, drift status) and the usage flow, which aids agent decision-making without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. There is no wasted text.

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 that the tool has zero parameters, annotations fully cover behavioral traits, and an output schema exists (not shown but implied), the description is complete. It explains the tool's role as a precursor to other tools, making the agent well-equipped to use it correctly.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description naturally adds no parameter information beyond what the schema shows. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides useful context about the output.

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 'List all configured sources with their type, location, chunk count, and drift status,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that the listed names are used as arguments for other tools like search and deep_search.

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 advises 'Call this first when you don't know which sources are available' and instructs to pass a name as the source argument to other tools. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and distinguishes it from alternative tools.

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