list_indexed_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description states what is returned (indexed files with chunk counts). It does not mention edge cases like pagination or errors, but for a simple listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler or redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter behavior is explained efficiently in the second sentence.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenarios. It could be slightly more explicit about behavior in single-collection mode, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the tool description directly explains the only parameter: 'specify a collection name or leave empty to list sources across all collections.' This fully clarifies the meaning and default behavior of the collection parameter.

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 states a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('indexed files'), and the output ('with chunk counts'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_docs and list_collections by describing an inventory-style listing.

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 explains the conditional behavior of the collection parameter ('In multi-collection mode... leave empty to list sources across all collections'), but it does not explicitly compare this tool with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over search_docs or list_collections. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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