list_log_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: the scope is limited to 'this site,' the result includes each source's size and readability flag, and the returned id is the handle for downstream calls. It does not mention permissions, failure behavior, or whether unreadable sources are still listed, which keeps it short of full disclosure for an annotation-free tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the actionable next step. Every clause adds information: examples, returned fields, and the follow-up call pattern. No filler.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: what sources exist, that size and readability come back, and how to use the returned id. There is no meaningful gap left for correct invocation.

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 is 4 and there is nothing in the schema that needs compensating. The description instead clarifies the output-side contract (an id to reuse), which is helpful even though it is technically return-value semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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 (List) and a precise resource (log sources FatalGuard can read on this site), then enumerates concrete examples (PHP error log, wp-content/debug.log, PHP ini error_log) and the returned attributes (size, readable). This clearly separates it from tail_log (reads content) and list_errors (lists error entries), so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Use the returned id with tail_log or list_errors,' which establishes this as the discovery step before reading content. It gives no exclusions or conditions for when not to call it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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