list_sources

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full load, and it does establish that this is a read of pre-configured sources plus the metadata returned (status, last fetch time, item count), which tells an agent the call is inert and reveals feed health. It stops short of stating permissions or whether configuration is account-scoped.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then the returned fields, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials by listing the returned attributes. It could add ordering or whether disabled feeds are included, but nothing critical is missing for a zero-argument inspection call.

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 schema takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline applies and the description correctly avoids inventing arguments. It also stays honest by not implying any filtering options.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus concrete resource ('configured football RSS feeds') and an enumeration of the fields surfaced (homepage, status, last fetch time, item count). No sibling tool covers feed configuration, so it is naturally distinguishable from the scores/fixtures/stats tools without needing explicit contrast.

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 by the verb — an agent can infer this is for inspecting which feed sources exist and their health status, but the description never states when to call it (e.g. before a news refresh, to debug a stale feed) nor mentions any alternative or prerequisite.

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