bw_datasource_get_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses the key behaviors: get operation, file output when outputPath is set, inline summary vs raw XML otherwise, and reusability of the written XML. It does not describe the default format when format is omitted or the effect of forceCacheUpdate, but these are less central than the main 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?

Three sentences with the key workflow and format decisions front-loaded. The 'ALWAYS prefer outputPath' directive is direct, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

Core behavior is covered well, but with no annotations and no output schema, the definition still leaves forceCacheUpdate and sourceSystem undefined and doesn't state the inline default when format is absent. For a 5-parameter tool with low schema coverage, these are meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is only 40%, and the description mostly clarifies outputPath and format, leaving the required sourceSystem and the forceCacheUpdate boolean undocumented in both schema and description. It does add concrete meaning for format (summary vs xml), but it does not compensate for the low coverage of the remaining parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get raw DataSource XML') and the intended workflow ('for PUT updates'), so an agent knows this is the datasource read-for-edit tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling get_xml tools (bw_adso_get_xml, bw_trfn_get_xml, etc.), though the resource name and 'DataSource' make the target object clear.

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?

Gives a strong directive ('ALWAYS prefer outputPath') and explains the outputPath workflow: write full XML to disk and reuse it as xmlPath in bw_datasource_save_and_activate. It also states the inline format alternatives (summary vs xml) and the schema adds the explicit rule to use a bw_*_get_xml tool when raw XML is needed.

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