list_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful system context — sources drive candidate recall and AI ranking is handled server-side — which clarifies the tool's role, but says nothing about permissions, whether the returned configuration status can change, or how results are ordered.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the explanatory context placed second. Every clause contributes.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers what the tool lists and why sources matter; the only minor gap is the absence of any guidance on when in a workflow to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List recommended source projects') plus an extra dimension ('their configuration status'). Siblings are in unrelated domains (image search, platforms, feedback), so no explicit differentiation is needed, but the description does not name what distinguishes this listing from list_platforms beyond topic.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this to discover which sources exist before searching. The second sentence gives purpose context ('Sources are used for candidate recall') but offers no when-to-use condition, prerequisites, or alternative tools to consider.

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