dbt-list-sources

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it lists sources from manifest.json but does not disclose whether the manifest is locally available, if authentication is needed, or any side effects (e.g., read-only). The description fails to communicate traits beyond the basic action, making it minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is informative with no redundancy. It fully meets the requirement of being appropriately sized and efficient.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, many sibling list tools), the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format or contents, nor does it clarify when to prefer this over dbt-get-source or other list tools. The omission of output and comparative guidance makes it incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 high (75%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'optional source-group / name filters' which roughly maps to sourceName and search parameters, but provides no new details beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on limit or extractFields. The added semantic value is marginal, keeping the score at baseline.

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 the specific action (List) and resource (dbt sources from manifest.json), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like dbt-list-models or dbt-list-tests. The mention of 'optional source-group / name filters' indicates filtering but could be slightly ambiguous—'source-group' maps to sourceName parameter and 'name' to search. Overall, purpose is clear with a specific verb and resource.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dbt-get-source for a single source, or other list tools. There are no explicit context or exclusion statements. The description is purely declarative, leaving the agent to infer usage without comparative information.

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