list_configured_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully signal that this path does not touch the aggregator, provider health, browser, or model, implying a lightweight read with no provider side effects, but it never explicitly states read-only semantics, auth needs, or whether the lifespan run has side effects.

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?

Three short sentences with the core scope ('configured source metadata only, not observed provider health') front-loaded. The final sentence about MCP transport lifespan is somewhat internal and only marginally helpful, but overall it is tight and readable.

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 listing tool with an output schema that already documents return values, the description supplies adequate purpose and scope. The main omission is any routing between this and the sibling source/job listing 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level ambiguity exists.

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: returning configured source metadata. It also scopes the result by excluding observed provider health, which is genuinely clarifying. However, it never names list_job_sources or any sibling, so an agent cannot tell how this differs from the other source-listing tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_job_sources. The notes about the aggregator, health, browser, and lifespan read as implementation detail rather than selection guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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