list_data_sources

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states this is a read operation ('authoring-friendly read') and lists the fields returned, which is adequate for a non-destructive tool. However, it does not address potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling, which are minor omissions.

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 concise at two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states the output, the second distinguishes it from a sibling tool. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description lists all fields returned, making the return value clear. It also references a sibling tool for comparison. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., invalid path, empty report), but for a simple read tool this is acceptable.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path', which is well described in the schema itself. The tool description does not add additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 the tool returns a 'rich list' of DataSources with specific fields, and explicitly distinguishes itself from 'describe_report.data_sources' which returns only names. The verb 'Return' and the resource 'rich list of every <DataSource>' make the purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative 'describe_report.data_sources' (rich list vs names only). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear that it's for authoring-friendly reads, implying it's not for modifications.

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