get_topologysources

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as pagination behavior, default limits, result shape, or how the filter parameters interact. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse. It is somewhat sparse but appropriate for a straightforward listing operation whose parameters are already documented in the schema.

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?

The schema and annotations cover parameter semantics and safety, but the description lacks operation-level context such as how the listing relates to the singular get_topologysource sibling or what the response contains. With no output schema, some important context is left to inference.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including defaults, a raw filter example, and override semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description itself mentions no parameters and adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('TopologySources'), so an agent can identify this as a collection-listing operation. It does not go beyond the name to specify scope or explicitly call out the singular get_topologysource sibling, so it stops short of a top-tier distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus get_topologysource for a single item or versus the create/update/delete topology-source tools. 'List' weakly implies a collection operation, but there are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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