list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and explains that the listed sources feed insert_citation and insert_bibliography. It could add more about edge cases, such as behavior when no sources exist, but the output schema likely covers return structure.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: content scope, usage context, and a safety/read-only note. The most distinguishing information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a simple list operation: it names the data returned, the workflow context, and the read-only nature. The only notable gap is the absence of file_path semantics, which is a minor omission given the single obvious parameter and the presence of an output schema.

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% and the description does not clarify the file_path parameter beyond its name. Although file_path is self-explanatory in context, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, so the agent must infer the expected path format and meaning.

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 identifies a specific resource (bibliography sources in the document's XML source store) and the action (listing them). It also distinguishes this tool from the native citation workflow and from external citation managers, making it easy to differentiate from siblings like insert_citation, insert_bibliography, and delete_source.

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?

Explicitly states this is for Word's native citation system and not Zotero/Mendeley/EndNote, which tells the agent when not to use it. It also instructs running detect_citation_system first on unfamiliar documents, giving a clear prerequisite and alternative path.

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