list_data_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's read-only nature aligns without contradiction. The description adds the specific scope of what is listed (file/JDBC/REST loaders), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, return structure, or whether sensitive fields like passwords are excluded. The annotations cover the safety profile, so a baseline score is appropriate.

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 that conveys the core purpose and scope directly. There is no wasted wording, and the parenthetical clarifies the loader types efficiently.

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 a clear schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, though it could have briefly mentioned that it returns definitions (metadata) rather than the actual import data, and it does not guide usage relative to sibling list_import_sets. These are minor gaps given the low complexity.

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 provides 100% coverage of the three parameters (type, limit, query) with descriptions, so the description need not add param-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic burden and the description adds no further parameter context.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('Import Set data source definitions'), while clarifying the scope ('file/JDBC/REST loaders'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_import_sets', which likely lists import sets themselves rather than their source definitions.

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 usage context by naming the resource type and loader categories, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_import_sets' or 'get_import_set'. There is no exclusion guidance, making the usage cues implicit rather than explicit.

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