list_datasources

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared in annotations, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it, so no credit there. It does add value by disclosing the fields returned, which matters since there is no output schema, but it omits any auth or scoping behavior. Adequate given annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place; the only minor redundancy is the '[READ]' tag duplicating an annotation.

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 simple parameterless list tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields plus the target argument's default behavior covers what an agent needs. Annotations handle the read-only safety profile, leaving little missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only names 'Target' with no description, so the description carries the burden and does so: it defines target as 'Grafana target name from config' and clarifies default behavior ('omit for the default'). With only one param, this is solid compensation.

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 resource (Grafana datasources) and even enumerates the returned fields (id, uid, name, type, default). It is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like datasource_health, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only usage guidance is the parameter note 'omit for the default,' which explains the target argument but not when to choose this tool over datasource_health or other status tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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