List sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal context by scoping the list to 'integration sources for incoming leads,' but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what fields are returned. With annotations providing the read-only cue, this is adequate but not rich.

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 immediately states the action and resource. There is no wasted wording or redundant information. It earns its place as an efficient and front-loaded description.

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 list tool with annotations but no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It clarifies what the tool lists but does not mention pagination parameters, result shape, or any filtering context. Given the tool's simplicity, the gap is noticeable but not severe.

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 two parameters (page, limit) with no descriptions, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain these parameters, so the agent must infer their meaning from common pagination conventions. Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, it falls below the baseline.

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 'List integration sources for incoming leads' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('integration sources'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like kommo_leads_list (which lists leads) and kommo_incoming_leads_list (which lists incoming leads). It adds the scope 'for incoming leads,' differentiating it from other source-related operations like get, create, or update.

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 implies usage: when you need to list integration sources for incoming leads. However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives, such as 'use kommo_sources_get to retrieve a single source' or 'use kommo_sources_create to add a source.' The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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