get_datasource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, whether it returns all fields or a subset, or any rate limits. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information 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 retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what information is returned, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this differs from bulk fetch operations. The context signals indicate this tool needs more complete documentation.

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%, so the single parameter 'datasource_id' is completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which provides minimal context about the parameter's purpose, but doesn't specify format (e.g., UUID, numeric), where to find IDs, or validation rules. It adds some meaning but doesn't adequately compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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') and resource ('a datasource by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'fetch_datasources' or 'create_datasource', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fetch_datasources' (which likely lists multiple datasources) or 'create_datasource'. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases for retrieving a single datasource by ID.

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