Workbooks List Report Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on pagination, whether results include inherited/upstream sources, or what happens for a report with no sources.

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 zero filler or redundancy. It is tight, though the brevity comes at the cost of the guidance dimensions rather than being a model of efficient completeness.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Still, the sole parameter is undocumented and the tool is indistinguishable from lineage/query/sources siblings, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema only says report_id is a string. The description does not compensate by explaining the expected ID format, where to obtain it, or whether it accepts names as well. One parameter with no added meaning.

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 ("List") and resource ("data sources used by a report"), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it draws no boundary against close siblings such as workbooks_list_report_lineage, workbooks_list_report_queries, or elements_list_workbook_sources, so an agent cannot tell which of these to pick without opening schemas.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid report_id) are mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and the crowded sibling list.

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