raggy_private_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation lists private sources and requires an API key, both useful security/privacy context. However, it does not describe whether the list is paginated, whether it returns only metadata or full content, or what happens with no sources. This is adequate but has gaps.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place: one for the function and scope, one for usage context and authentication requirement. It could have been even tighter, but it is not bloated.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to select and invoke it for listing sources. It mentions the API key requirement and ties to specific sibling tools. It lacks details about response shape or edge cases, but for a parameterless list operation, this is largely complete.

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 has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds meaning by stating what the list represents (private uploaded sources, files/URLs ingested via raggy_upload), which helps the agent infer expected output. With zero parameters, there is no parameter documentation burden, so a high score is justified.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('uploaded private knowledge base sources'), and specifies the ingestion method (files/URLs via raggy_upload). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the source-listing tool, especially related to deletion.

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?

The description explicitly gives use cases ('what sources have I uploaded' and 'to find a source ID for deletion') and names the sibling tools involved (raggy_upload, raggy_delete_source). It provides clear conditions for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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