list_data_sources

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive, requires no authentication beyond an optional API key, or has rate limits. No side effects or constraints are disclosed.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the action verb 'List'.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could add context about what the returned list contains (e.g., IDs, names, metadata) to improve 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 has one undocumented parameter 'api_key' (0% schema description coverage). The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to explain its purpose, format, or when it is needed.

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 states the tool lists 'open-licence geospatial data sources wrapped by Gods Eye,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_data_provenance' or 'situational_query,' though the name implies a listing function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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