list_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool lists all available source abbreviations with their content types and files, and that filtering by content type is optional. For a read-only enumeration operation, this is adequate, though it does not describe output shape or any edge-case 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the primary action and the optional filter in a compact and readable way.

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?

The tool is simple, has no required parameters, and the schema covers all parameters thoroughly. The description conveys the essential behavior and return contents, though it could be slightly more complete by noting the default ruleset behavior or how homebrew interacts with the source list; these are already covered by parameter descriptions.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for ruleset, homebrew, and content_type. The description adds context about the output contents but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available source abbreviations'), and clarifies what is included ('content types and files'). This clearly distinguishes list_sources from the many get/search sibling tools, which retrieve specific content rather than enumerate available sources.

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 implies usage when you need to enumerate available sources, and mentions optional content-type filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is referenced, leaving the when-to-use decision mostly to inference.

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