List Live Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic list operation—e.g., whether pagination applies, what a 'live source' contains, or if the list is ordered. It neither contradicts the annotations nor provides additional behavioral detail, resulting in a neutral score.

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 with no unnecessary words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, and the structure is highly scannable. 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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and useful annotations, the description is minimally adequate but lacks richness. It does not explain what live sources are, what the returned list contains, or any required credentials or setup, which would be helpful given the domain-specific terminology. The tool is simple though, so a score of 3 reflects the adequate-but-minimal nature.

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 already describes the only parameter (rag_id) as 'Knowledge base id' with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic weight; the description does not compensate with any additional parameter context.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('live sources') with a scope ('for a knowledge base'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like lyzr_livesource_get (single source) or lyzr_livesource_list_credentials. The name and title align with the description, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as lyzr_kb_list_documents or lyzr_livesource_get. The description does not mention prerequisites like the need for an existing knowledge base or any exclusions. There is no explicit context for when this tool is the right choice beyond its name.

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