List WidgetDash sources

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds meaningful context: it discloses the required credential (WIDGETDASH_READ_KEY, falling back to the write key) and describes the returned fields and plan quota. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the auth detail is valuable beyond annotations.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load the list operation and then cover return fields, plan quota, and authentication. No filler 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?

For a parameterless read-only list tool, the description covers what is returned, the auth mechanism, and plan constraints. With no output schema, this is sufficient; nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the rubric sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter-level information because there are none to describe.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('data sources on the user's WidgetDash iPhone widgets'), and enumerates the returned fields. It clearly separates from push_* and delete_source siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with get_widget_data, so it falls short of a 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusion criteria. The only usage signal is the auth-key note, which explains how to authenticate rather than when this tool is the correct choice over siblings.

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