get_data_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral details such as read-only nature, error conditions if the binding doesn't exist, or any side effects. The name 'get' implies retrieval, but the description itself does not confirm safety or other traits.

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 very brief with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is structured as a docstring with an 'Args' block, which is acceptable but not as clean as a single natural-language sentence.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and argument, but lacks context about when to use it or what 'binding' represents. It is minimally sufficient for invocation but not for confident selection among siblings.

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 description only repeats the parameter name and provides a redundant Russian translation ('UUID проекта'), adding no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate with any additional context about the parameter.

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 retrieves the binding of a project to a data-source agent, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('binding'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_data_source and delete_data_source, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getters like get_commit_dag.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does and the argument, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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