canvas_data_sources

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that it flags unreferenced data sources, checks meta.xml DatabaseReferences for solution sources, and reports missing columns. It also gives concrete consequences such as silent drops on save/publish and broken writes after import.

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 dense yet compact, front-loading the main purpose and then adding high-value behavioral details. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 description is rich in behavioral detail and covers important failure modes, but it leaves parameter meanings unexplained and does not describe the output format. With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, this creates a meaningful gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the description does not clearly define what 'app' or 'source' should contain. The phrase 'On a solution source' hints at the source parameter, but this is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct inputs.

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 defines the tool as reporting an app's data sources with referencing formulas, plus specific analysis flags. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tables or search_formulas by focusing on data-source usage and reference integrity.

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 when to use it: when inspecting canvas app data sources and their formula references, or when validating a solution source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus related siblings.

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