list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or any other behaviors beyond the literal action. However, for a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. It contains no wasted words and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple tool with a single well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and the output schema covers return value details.

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 100% because the only parameter (collector_id) has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 as per the rubric.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') plus the resource ('sources') and scope ('on a collector'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_collectors or get_source, making it unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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