solver_list_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: sources run on the tenant's provider key/account, each entry contains protocol/auth profile versions and endpoint policy, and no credential material is involved. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not explicitly stated, which is a minor gap.

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 with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and endpoint, and the second adds relevant behavioral detail. It is well-structured for quick scanning and every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it gives the endpoint, tenant scope, and key behavioral context. It does not describe the full result format, but with no output schema that is a minor gap. The main missing piece is routing guidance relative to similarly named siblings, which was already factored into usage_guidelines.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed; it does add value by explaining what each returned entry carries, which aids interpretation.

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 action ('List the model sources this tenant can connect') and includes the exact endpoint, making the resource and scope clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like solver_list_source_connections by the 'model sources' wording, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a simple listing use case but does not explain when to prefer it over solver_list_source_connections or other siblings, and there are no exclusions or conditions provided.

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