yearning_list_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the scope of current account permissions and the underlying API endpoint, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or error handling.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a useful API reference. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 is simple, with an output schema and annotations covering safety. The description adequately covers the operation and scope; it doesn't need to explain return values given the output schema. Minor omission: doesn't mention all filter values (all/idc) but those are in the schema.

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 already describes the 'tp' parameter with enum values and default. The description restates the filter dimensions but adds no new meaning for 'response_format', which lacks a description. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not adequately compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists data sources accessible to the current account, with optional filtering by query/dml/ddl dimensions. The verb 'list' and resource 'data sources' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_databases and list_tables.

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?

Provides clear context: lists data sources the current account has permission to, and mentions the filter dimension. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough given the sibling tools.

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