list_datasources

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 action ('List all configured datasources') but doesn't describe what 'details' include, whether the list is paginated, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns sensitive configuration data.

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 purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details like response format or access requirements. For a tool that lists datasources—potentially sensitive configurations—more context would be helpful, but the absence of complex schema elements keeps it from being severely incomplete.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, which is correct for this case. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameter information is needed beyond what the schema already indicates (empty object).

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 ('List') and resource ('all configured datasources with their details'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_datasource_by_name' or 'get_datasources_by_type', which are more targeted retrieval operations.

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. There are several sibling tools for datasource retrieval (e.g., 'get_datasource_by_name', 'get_datasources_by_type'), but the description doesn't mention any context or exclusions for choosing this broad listing tool over more specific ones.

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