list_data_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'can inspect' implies a read-only listing operation, which is helpful, but it does not disclose whether the list is live, cached, limited by permissions, or what shape the response takes.

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 clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core action is stated immediately.

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?

For a no-argument listing tool with an output schema available, the description is reasonably complete. It lacks only contextual guidance on how data sources relate to the sibling schema/table listing tools, which is a minor gap for such a simple discovery operation.

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 the schema already fully describes the input surface. The description adds minimal semantic value, but with no parameters there is nothing meaningful to document, making the baseline of 4 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 a specific action and resource: 'List data sources' that the MCP server can inspect. This is sufficiently distinct from siblings like list_schemas and list_tables, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is a discovery step before listing schemas or tables, but does not state this or mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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