list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it discloses which fields are surfaced and that sensitive values are never returned, which is important for an agent deciding whether it can inspect config safely.

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 tight sentences with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, followed by a single crucial non-disclosure caveat. No filler.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, which it does by enumerating the four kinds of information. It could note the container/format (e.g. a list of source objects), but an agent has enough to call and interpret it.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless, whole-set listing.

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 the resource and the exact fields enumerated (sources, enforced rates, terms links, PKGINTEL_CONTACT status). It reads clearly as a configuration/metadata enumeration tool and is distinguishable from data-fetching siblings like get_package or get_version.

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 implied: an agent would call this to discover upstream registries, rate limits, and whether contact info is configured. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to an alternative tool, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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