list_global_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a 'compact summary per source' and warns that the API may not return all types without a filter, which is non-obvious and valuable context. It does not explicitly state side effects or read-only status, but for a list operation this is largely self-evident.

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 two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded and the caveat appended. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's output, the second provides an essential usage warning. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the return format ('compact summary'), and a critical caveat about filtering. It is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could potentially mention pagination or related sibling tools.

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 schema already documents the 'component' parameter. The description reinforces the importance of the parameter ('Always provide component') and gives examples in the schema, but adds no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('List global sources') and the resource ('global sources (cart, popup, etc.)'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_global_source_detail and search_global_source_elements. The verb 'List' is specific, and the resource scope is defined.

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 provides an explicit usage instruction: 'Always provide component to filter by type — the API may not return all types without a filter.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool effectively. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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