get-datasource-docs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (get documentation) without mentioning potential side effects, error conditions, or necessary context. For a read-only fetch tool, a note about network dependency or expected response format would improve transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and immediately specifies the required identifiers. No unnecessary words.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema. The description is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose but lacks details on expected output format or any prerequisites. Considering the context (low complexity, full schema coverage), a score of 3 is reasonable.

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% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description merely summarizes the parameter roles without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 action (get detailed documentation) and the target (a specific OpenTofu data source) with required identifiers (namespace, provider name, data source name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-resource-docs and get-module-details, which target different entity types.

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 implies usage for data source documentation but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. While the sibling names hint at differentiation, explicit exclusion (e.g., 'not for resources or modules') would make it a 5.

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