airbyte_list_source_definitions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description adds that the tool returns a list with name, definition ID, and Docker image info, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, when to use, returns, and examples. It is concise with no wasted sentences, every sentence adds value.

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 (list operation with two params, annotations present, output schema exists), the description covers usage context, return content, and provides an example. It could mention that the list is workspace-specific, but it's adequate.

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?

Input schema has two parameters: workspace_id (with description 'UUID of the workspace') and response_format (enum with default). The description provides an example using workspace_id but does not explain response_format or further detail workspace_id format. With schema description coverage at 0% (though workspace_id has a description), the description adds limited value over 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 lists available source connector definitions in a workspace, explains what source definitions are, and links to creating a source. It differentiates from sibling tools like airbyte_get_source_definition by focusing on listing all definitions.

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 explicitly includes a 'When to Use' section with two scenarios: finding definition IDs before creating a source and auditing custom connectors. It references the sibling tool airbyte_create_source. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with get_source_definition.

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