list_data_sources

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying the return contents (IDs, names, types) and the 'all available' scope, but it does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, ordering, or auth requirements. This is adequate but not rich.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The action, scope, and output fields are all communicated upfront, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, the scope, and the return fields. The low complexity means no further behavioral or structural detail is necessary.

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 description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter ambiguities. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning because no parameters exist.

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') with a clear resource ('all available Redash data sources') and explicitly states the output fields (IDs, names, types). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_data_source_schema or get_table_info, which focus on individual source/table details.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this should be used to discover data source IDs before calling execute_adhoc_query, nor does it direct users to get_data_source_schema or search_schema for more detailed exploration.

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