listSources

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose 'Read-only', which is the key safety signal. It also enumerates the data returned (connector, stream, items ingested, last advance time). It stops short of pagination, volume, or auth expectations, so it's adequate rather than rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and the parenthetical field list that removes ambiguity, then 'Read-only.' as a terminal safety note. Dense but every clause adds information; the first sentence is long but not padded.

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?

Zero parameters, an output schema that covers return shape, and a stated read-only guarantee mean little more is required. The only residual gap is operational context — how large the result can be or whether unconnected-but-available connectors are distinguished from connected ones.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered global listing with no arguments needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource pair: lists available external ingest connectors (with an example, local-git) plus the per-source resume watermark. The example connector and enumerated returned fields make the scope concrete. It doesn't explicitly name siblings like connectSource or ingestSource, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 — check what connectors exist before connecting, and check progress of existing ingests — but the description never says when to call this versus connectSource, ingestSource, or recordSourceRef. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving routing to inference.

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