ds_list_datasources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List data sources' without mentioning what the output looks like, whether it is read-only, if there are permission requirements, or if pagination applies. It is minimal and leaves the agent without a clear expectation of side effects or return data.

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 is appropriately short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args section adds useful parameter examples without unnecessary verbosity. It earns its place, though it could be even more informative without being verbose. It is 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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps. It does not explain what data sources are returned (names? configurations?), how to interpret the 'etc.' in ds_type, or any error/empty-result behavior. The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete.

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 has no description for the ds_type parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by listing example values ('HIVE / MYSQL / POSTGRESQL / SPARK / CLICKHOUSE etc.'), which clarifies the acceptable domain and implies that this is a filter. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type/default.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly as 'List data sources' with a specific resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ds_list_resources, which might also list resources of some kind. The inclusion of example ds_type values gives context that this is about data source types, but the distinction is implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, related operations like testing connections, or scenarios where this listing is appropriate. The description simply states the action with no exclusions or context.

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