list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'list' which implies a read operation, but omits details like whether all sources are returned or if the 'id' parameter filters results. No mention of pagination, ordering, or response format.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise, though could benefit from slight expansion on parameters.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return format, behavior when no parameter is given, and potential filtering logic, which are expected for completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It lists examples of source values but does not explain the 'id' parameter's meaning or behavior (e.g., filter vs. get single source). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource 'incident sources', with examples (Portal, Email, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings, none of which cover 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward (listing sources), and its utility is implied given the sibling tools cover other entities. A simple list tool may not require extensive guidelines.

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