get_datasource_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the full response can be too large, which is a useful behavioral trait, and explains how to reduce it via flags. However, it does not describe the return format, error conditions, or confirm that this is a read-only operation. The name implies a safe get, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose; the second provides a useful tip. There is no redundant filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (a single get operation with three parameters), the description is adequately complete. All parameters are covered in the schema, and the usage tip addresses a common concern about response size. There is no output schema, but for a straightforward getter, the description does not need to detail return values. It lacks some context about what a datasource type is, but sibling tool names clarify the domain.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining a concrete use case for the boolean flags: setting both to false yields basic type info and avoids overly large responses. This practical guidance goes beyond the schema's 'Include methods' and 'Include properties' descriptions.

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's function: 'Get a datasource type.' This identifies a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from list or create operations. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'list_datasource_types' but the verb 'get' implies retrieving a single item.

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 provides a practical usage hint: 'Use include_properties=false and include_methods=false to get only basic type info.' This is a guideline for parameter usage, not for tool selection. It implies the tool is for retrieving a single datasource type, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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