check_datasource_exists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks existence but doesn't describe what 'exists' means (e.g., active vs. archived), the return format (e.g., boolean, status code, error message), or any side effects like rate limits or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., what 'exists' entails or the response format), behavioral details like error handling, or usage context relative to sibling tools. For a tool with no structured output information, more descriptive content is needed to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both 'uid' and 'name' parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning these parameters but doesn't provide additional context, such as whether both can be used together or if the check is case-sensitive. With high schema coverage, 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's purpose as checking if a datasource exists, specifying the verb 'check' and resource 'datasource'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_datasource_by_name' or 'get_datasource_by_uid' by focusing on existence verification rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 'get_datasource_by_name' or 'get_datasource_by_uid'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, such as whether both UID and name can be provided simultaneously or if one is prioritized, nor does it mention any exclusions or context for usage.

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