list_doc_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a read-only listing action without mentioning potential side effects, authentication, rate limits, or response structure. The description lacks depth beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 14 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter with enum, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output (listed sources). While it could mention the return format, the low complexity means the description is largely sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, including the parameter 'category' with a default and enum descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema—it fails to explain how the filter works or what the values represent. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers the parameter details.

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 available Google Meridian documentation sources, user guides, API references, and GitHub repository links,' specifying the verb (list) and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_docs or search_doc_topics, which retrieve content rather than listing sources.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining an overview of documentation sources, but it does not explicitly specify when to use it or contrast with sibling tools like fetch_docs or search_doc_topics. No when-not or alternative usage is provided.

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