list_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — results are permission-filtered to 'approved documents the current caller is allowed to see' — which is real value beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, result size, or what an empty result means, leaving key runtime behavior undocumented.

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, and the core scope constraint (caller visibility) sits at the end of an already short clause. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (approved, caller-visible documents) and implicitly why the set may be smaller than the full corpus. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on result volume or pagination, which matters when there is no output schema to describe shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the bare schema. It does not introduce any phantom parameters or misleading filter language, which keeps it clean.

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 ('approved documents') and adds a scope qualifier ('the current caller is allowed to see'). It is clear enough to distinguish from get_document by implication (plural enumeration vs single retrieval), but it never names search_knowledge or explains how this differs from searching.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'List' suggests a browsing/discovery scenario, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of search_knowledge, and no exclusions or preconditions are given. An agent must infer the routing decision from the verb alone.

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