list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description relies on the word 'List' to imply a read-only operation. It lacks explicit statements about safety, authentication, or side effects, which would be beneficial for full transparency.

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, no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and lists returned fields; the second provides a clear usage directive. Maximum efficiency.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its primary use case. It could mention any ordering or limits but is sufficient for a simple list 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the input schema is trivial. The description adds meaning by detailing the output fields (category, display_type, classification, etc.), which helps an agent understand what information will be returned.

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 tool lists all configured data sources, specifying key attributes returned (category, display_type, etc.), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by highlighting its utility for discovering valid source/category values for query_records.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use to discover valid source and category values for query_records.' It does not provide explicit exclusions but the context implies it is not for status or activity data.

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