bw_datasource_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'Get parsed DataSource field list' only states the high-level read behavior; it does not explain caching, forceCacheUpdate effects, output structure, or any prerequisites, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with four unannotated parameters.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. While sparse, its brevity is not padded with filler; however, it may be slightly too terse to stand alone for such an under-documented tool.

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 tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is not complete enough. It does not explain what the returned field list looks like, what sourceSystem must contain, or what forceCacheUpdate does, so an agent lacks critical context for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%: only outputPath is documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for datasource, sourceSystem, or forceCacheUpdate, so the agent is left without enough context about what these required parameters mean or how they affect the operation.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('parsed DataSource field list'), so an agent can tell it returns field information rather than raw XML or metadata. It doesn't explicitly name or differentiate it from sibling getters like bw_datasource_details or bw_datasource_get_xml, but the object is specific enough to be unambiguous.

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 such as bw_datasource_get_xml, bw_datasource_details, or bw_datasource_versions. No exclusions or preferred contexts are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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