List job sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only listing of sources with status details, which is adequately transparent. It does not mention potential permissions or data sensitivity, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Show every source...') and immediately adds value with status and diagnostic context. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description fully conveys what is returned (sources, enabled status, disabled reasons) and when to use it. It is complete and self-contained.

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 is empty (0 parameters). Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 when there are no parameters, and the description need not add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the output behavior instead.

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 shows all job sources, their enabled status, and reasons for being disabled. This is a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs or list_company_jobs.

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?

It provides a clear context for when to use the tool (diagnosing configuration) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Still, the context is sufficient to guide appropriate use.

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