get_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'fred/sources' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just two words, this is a case of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide any meaningful information that would help an AI agent understand or use the tool. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't earn their place by adding value.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is completely inadequate. While the output schema may help with understanding return values, the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent unable to properly select or invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description 'fred/sources' adds zero semantic information about what parameters like 'realtime_start', 'realtime_end', 'limit', 'offset', 'order_by', or 'sort_order' mean or how they affect the operation. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.

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 'fred/sources' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It provides no verb, no resource specification, and no differentiation from sibling tools like 'get_source' or 'get_source_releases'. This fails to communicate any meaningful purpose to an AI agent.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_source' (singular) and 'get_source_releases', there's clear potential for confusion, but the description provides no context about scope, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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