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. It discloses that this is a listing operation, that sources may have never been loaded, and what fields describe their state. While it does not mention side effects or auth, 'List' implies a read-only operation and the coverage caveat adds useful behavioral context.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the return fields efficiently, and ends with a practical usage hint. No filler or redundant repetition.

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, optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, the fields returned, and the recommended calling context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single optional parameter jurisdiction is fully described in the input schema with an example. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema coverage earns the baseline score of 3.

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 action (List), a precise resource (exclusion/license sources currently loaded by ScreenVerity), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools screen and verify_receipt, which perform different operations.

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 gives explicit context for when to call it: 'Call before assuming a state is covered.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that this is minor.

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