get_datasource_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists return content (schema, size, segments), but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The 'Get' verb provides some transparency, but it is not fully explicit.

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 immediately communicates the purpose and key content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 with one parameter and no output schema, so the description sufficiently covers the essentials by mentioning 'schema, size, and segments' as return values. It does not need to explain additional details like pagination or complex return structures, but could have added a note about error conditions or auth requirements for completeness.

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 input schema fully defines the single 'datasource' parameter with a description, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, thus 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('datasource'), clearly stating the action and what is included ('schema, size, and segments'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_datasources (listing vs. details) and execute_sql_query (query vs. metadata).

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 makes clear the tool is used for a specific datasource, which implicitly sets it apart from list_datasources. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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