List datasources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's clear this is a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose details like whether it requires specific workspace permissions, whether the plugin field is a name or ID, or the ordering/pagination of results. For a read-only listing tool with zero annotation coverage, the behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 concise sentence that conveys purpose and an extra detail (plugin inclusion) with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the verb+object structure.

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 list tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, given the number of list-type siblings (applications, pages, queries, workspaces, plugins), a bit more context about what this returns beyond 'the plugin' and how workspace scoping works would improve completeness. No output schema exists, so the description could have offered slightly more on what fields the results contain.

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% - the single parameter workspaceId is documented in the schema ('Workspace id.'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but with only one fully-documented parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Lists datasources') and adds useful scope context ('in a workspace, with the plugin each one uses'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting the plugin inclusion, which helps differentiate from generic list tools like appsmith_list_applications or appsmith_list_pages.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it requires a workspaceId context established via list_workspaces, nor does it explain what plugin information is returned or how this differs from get_datasource_structure. Sibling tools like appsmith_list_plugins and appsmith_get_datasource_structure exist but no differentiation is offered.

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