mimicus_list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that a descriptor reflects a snapshot rather than a live connection — but it is worded so opaquely that its practical implication for the agent is uncertain.

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?

It is short and front-loads the verb, but the first sentence packs five undefined jargon items into one clause and the second is an unexplained aphorism. Sentence count is fine; clarity per sentence is not.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any grounding of the core vocabulary ('adapters', 'sources') and any hint of how this fits with its many siblings, leaving the definition minimally viable but ambiguous.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter-level detail is needed.

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 verb 'List' is specific and the description enumerates the kinds of content returned (adapters, diagnostics, interfaces, restrictions, resource state). However, terms like 'adapters' and 'sources' are never grounded, so an agent cannot tell what domain this operates on, and no sibling tool is referenced for differentiation from tools like mimicus_search or mimicus_get_reference.

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 statement of when to call this versus the 15 sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The closing sentence ('An unqueried descriptor is not a live connection') is a cryptic caveat, not usage guidance.

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