fgis_sources

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

The description only restates the tool's content and does not describe behavior such as read-only-ness, side effects, or response format. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints.

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?

A single line with a plain list; every word carries information and the main content is front-loaded. Nothing extraneous is present.

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 tool, the list of catalogues is mostly sufficient, but since there is no output schema, the description does not explicitly state what the tool returns or how the values connect to sibling tools like fgis_browse_source or fgis_catalog. It is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters and does not do so.

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 the tool as a source/catalogue listing and enumerates the specific catalogues (FSNB, FER, TER registry, etc.). It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as fgis_catalog or fgis_browse_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The phrase 'Available catalogues' implies it is an entry point for discovering catalogues, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or how it relates to fgis_catalog or fgis_browse_source.

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