list_data_sources

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a listing operation and returns source coverage information, implying a read-only catalog action. It does not detail return format or connection requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 with no filler. It states the action, the object, and the purpose in that order, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the basic return concept, but 'coverage' is left vague. It does not explain what dimensions of coverage are included or how the listed sources map to the sibling tools, which an agent would need for reliable source selection.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is appropriately 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List connected sources and their coverage.' The purpose is also explicit: 'so the assistant can choose the right one.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are domain-specific search, describe, and subset operations.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to choose the right data source among connected options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose sentence effectively communicates the intended usage moment.

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