bw_list_source_systems

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It specifies return fields (name, description, source_system_type, status, self_url, children_path) and filtering behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the 'list' verb implies it. Overall, clear behavioral context.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, filtering, and output usage. No unnecessary words; each sentence contributes meaningful information. Excellent front-loading.

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?

Given a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return structure, filtering, and how to chain with another tool. It is fully complete for the agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a detailed description of the one parameter. The description repeats the filtering info and adds examples but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists logical source systems (LSYS) registered in the BW datasource structure. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like bw_get_source_system (single) and bw_list_datasources (drill-down) by mentioning how the returned children_path can be used.

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 explains when to use the optional filter and provides a clear chaining instruction: pass children_path to bw_list_datasources. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for retrieving a single LSYS) versus using bw_get_source_system.

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