report_get_datasources

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description only restates the read operation with 'Get' and does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or output structure. It adds no value beyond the annotations.

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 filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the core action-object pair appears 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 simple read-only operation with two required parameters fully documented in the schema and read-only annotations provided, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear statement of what the tool returns: data sources used by a report.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both reportId and workspaceId. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that these identify the report whose data sources are being fetched.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('data sources used by a report'), which distinguishes it from the sibling semantic_model_get_datasources tool. The 'via the Power BI API' qualifier adds useful context without being vague.

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 semantic_model_get_datasources or other report-related tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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