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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals what the tool returns (adapters and their config fields), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe how the result is structured. For a list tool this is a moderate gap, not a severe one.

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, front-loading the tool's purpose and then giving the usage cue. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or 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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what to expect and when to call it. It could add explicit read-only wording or mention the output shape, but the low complexity means these gaps are minor.

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, so the description has nothing to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly identifies the resource (adapters) and the key information returned (config fields for each adapter), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'lists,' but the meaning is unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Use before add_source.' This tells an agent the intended context and prerequisite relationship. It does not discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, but for a simple no-parameter listing tool this is adequate.

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