list_sdks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a non-mutating enumeration of sources and that output is categorized, but it does not disclose return shape, whether categories are top-level or per-source, or any auth/refresh behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the verb, object, scope, and categorization detail are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It defines what is listed ('all available SDK documentation sources') and the organization ('with categories'), though an explicit statement of the returned data shape would make it fully self-contained.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, which makes the schema coverage essentially 100%. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description need not explain parameter behavior, and it doesn't introduce any conflicting parameter implications.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available SDK documentation sources'), and adds that results are grouped by categories. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like search_docs, refresh_docs, and the package/issue getters without requiring schema inspection.

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 given about when to choose this tool over search_docs, refresh_docs, or search_packages. The intended use for discovering/cataloging sources is only implied by the tool name and sibling list, not stated.

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