get_configsources

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'List'. It does not mention pagination, defaults, or return shape, so it provides little value beyond the structured 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?

The description is extremely concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with five parameters and many closely related siblings. The brevity is closer to minimalism than to a well-structured, informative 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 list tool with no output schema, the description leaves out what ConfigSources are, what the response contains, and how this tool relates to get_configsource. The annotations and schema cover safety and parameters, but the description alone is insufficient for full invocation context.

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%, with all five parameters documented including defaults and filter semantics. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema already carries the full semantic load, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('ConfigSources'), so an agent knows this tool enumerates ConfigSources. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular get_configsource or related configsource tools, but the plural resource name conveys collection scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_configsource, get_datasources, and create_configsource are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context.

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