trawl_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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not state permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether sources are scoped strictly by pool. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this is notably thin.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though the phrase 'for a client' introduces ambiguity rather than useful structure.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about what a 'source' is and what the listing returns. It does not clarify whether the list is filtered by pool, client, or both, nor does it mention permissions or result shape. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with full confidence.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter detail. The schema itself describes 'pool_name' only as 'Pool name', and the description does not clarify how this relates to 'client', so there is some ambiguity but no direct contradiction.

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 ('document sources'), which is clearer than the tool name alone. However, it says sources are 'for a client' while the required parameter is 'pool_name', creating ambiguity about scope. It also does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as trawl_list_repos, trawl_list_pools, or trawl_sync_sources.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like trawl_list_repos or trawl_sync_sources. The description gives a bare purpose statement with no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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