list_data_sources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action and scope, without indicating whether the operation is read-only, any performance implications, or side effects. It does not disclose the return format or any potential pagination, leaving the agent to guess at behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action ('List') and includes a useful scope qualifier, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description clearly states the scope, it is reasonably complete for a simple list operation. However, it omits any caveats like pagination or sorting, but these may not be necessary for such a basic tool. The presence of the output schema compensates for lack of return-value details.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already covers all (100% coverage). According to guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to clarify.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('data sources') with a scope qualifier ('visible to the current tenant'), making it distinct from sibling tools like list_schemas or list_tables. It precisely communicates what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or compare it to other list tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' is provided.

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