bw_datasource_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state side effects, authorization needs, response format, or whether any mutation could occur. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 wording. It is efficient, though it may be too sparse to fully support tool selection and invocation; the conciseness itself is strong.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the version history contains, how to identify a DataSource, or what the response looks like, leaving important gaps 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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain either 'datasource' or 'sourceSystem'. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving an agent to guess expected value formats and semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('DataSource version history'), making the tool's core function clear. It is distinguishable from sibling version tools (e.g., bw_adso_versions, bw_trfn_versions) by the 'DataSource' resource, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself.

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 such as bw_datasource_details or other *versions tools. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description, with no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisite conditions.

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