get_datasource_by_uid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, what happens if the UID doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned data. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or data format, and with no output schema, it should ideally hint at what 'detailed information' includes. For a tool in a datasource management context, more guidance is needed for effective use.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies that the 'uid' parameter is used to identify the datasource, which is somewhat redundant with the tool name. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining the UID format, examples, or constraints. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but it still lacks enrichment.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a datasource'), and specifies the lookup method ('using its UID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_datasource_by_name' by explicitly mentioning UID. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'list_datasources' or 'check_datasource_exists' in terms of scope or detail level.

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', 'list_datasources', or 'check_datasource_exists'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the UID) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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