Elements List Workbook Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not indicate whether this hits external/remote sources, whether results are paginated, or whether a missing workbook returns an error.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still leaves key gaps: the undocumented workbook_id, no disambiguation from the crowded set of sibling 'list_workbook_*' tools, and no indication of what constitutes a 'source'. For an otherwise simple list tool this is thinner than needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'workbook_id' is documented nowhere. The description only obliquely implies a workbook reference ('used by a workbook') and gives no format, ID source, or validation detail to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List data sources used by a workbook'), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not differentiate from the many look-alike siblings (elements_list_workbook_elements, elements_list_workbook_columns, elements_list_workbook_queries, workbooks_list_report_sources), leaving the boundary between 'sources' and 'elements/columns' to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for adjacent needs (e.g. columns, queries, lineage). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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