rag_sources_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, any side effects, or what the output contains. While not contradictory, it offers minimal insight into behavior beyond the bare action.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, though it is not as sparse as a tautology.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that is not described, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'registered 1C source trees' means, the role of parameters, the output format, or any preconditions. An agent has almost no context to correctly invoke this 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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'sync' or 'session_id' parameters. Both parameters have defaults and are optional, but their meaning and effect on the listing are completely unaddressed. The description adds no value beyond the schema field names.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('registered 1C source trees'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rag_source_add' (which adds) and 'rag_source_roots_list' (which lists roots) by referring to the registered sources themselves. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rag_source_roots_list' or 'rag_sources_add_from_directory'. No context or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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