List Sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool does not hit the network and may show demo data, which is important behavioral context. It doesn't detail the output format, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The main action is first, followed by a clarifying caveat about network behavior and an alternative command.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete: it covers purpose, scope, and key behavioral limitation (no network), which is all the context needed to select and invoke correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what 'sources' refers to (GitHub, Jira, Linear, Slack) and the demo data condition, which effectively serves as the parameter-free documentation.

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 ('Show') and identifies the resource (activity sources), listing example sources and the demo data state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like standup_draft or blocker_scan.

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?

It explains that this tool does not hit the network and suggests running the server with --check for live connection verification, which gives clear context on when to use this static listing versus a live check. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or say 'use this when...'.

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