tigergraph__get_all_data_sources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. The verb 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it avoids modifying data, nor does it mention any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits. It is minimally transparent.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information, fluff, or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to clarity, making it highly efficient.

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 has a simple signature (one optional parameter) and no output schema. The description explains that it returns 'information about all data sources', which gives a general sense of the return value without specifying its structure. This is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., a list of data source objects).

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 schema description for the only parameter 'profile' is fully covered (100%) and clearly explains its optional nature and how to list available profiles. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline is 3; the tool description itself adds no additional parameter insights beyond the schema.

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 function: retrieving information about all data sources. It uses the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'all data sources', which distinguishes it from get_data_source (singular) and the create/update/drop variants. The intent is unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_data_source for a single source. However, the tool name and description imply its use case (listing all data sources). The parameter description for 'profile' provides some context (use list_connections to see profiles), but no explicit guidance on tool selection is given.

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