List datasources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by stating secrets (secureJsonData, passwords, tokens) are never returned, which tells the agent what to expect in the payload. It does not address pagination or result limits, keeping it below a 5.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what is listed and its fields, the secrecy guarantee, and the chaining hint. Front-loaded with the core purpose and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields and the excluded secret fields, which is the most important return-value information. It omits ordering/pagination behavior, a minor gap for a simple zero-arg list tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list describes outputs rather than inputs and is not misleading.

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 (configured datasources), and enumerates the returned fields (uid, name, type, url), which cleanly separates it from get_datasource and query_datasource. An agent can pick it without opening a sibling schema.

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?

"Use the uid with query_datasource" gives an explicit follow-on workflow, making the intended role in a list-then-query chain clear. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., a single known datasource should use get_datasource), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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