get_diagnosticsources

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

The annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the list operation. It does not mention pagination, result shape, or any side effects, though the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and system are front-loaded. It earns every word.

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 read-only list operation with all-optional parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of what a DiagnosticSource is, what the response contains, or how this differs from get_diagnosticsource, so an agent gets only the bare invocation cue.

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%, so every parameter (limit, filter, offset, name_filter, group_filter) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('DiagnosticSources') and system ('LogicMonitor'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular get_diagnosticsource sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 offers no guidance about when to choose this tool over get_diagnosticsource or the create/update/delete variants. An agent must infer selection from sibling names and the plural resource, which is not stated guidance.

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