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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the exact return shape (id, name, item count) and the negative constraint that items are not included, which prevents an agent from expecting embedded item data. It omits pagination, ordering, and result-size limits.

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, zero filler, with the scope ('active workspace') and the return contract front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing what is returned, and it does so briefly and accurately. It leaves pagination and ordering unspecified, which is a minor gap for a list tool with a single optional filter.

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?

There is one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema fully documents the workspace slug, including the personal-token vs API-key behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the phrase 'active workspace', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists datasets') with a scope qualifier ('in the active workspace'), so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of naming the sibling it contrasts with (caliper_datasets_get for single-dataset detail), relying on 'items are not included' to imply the distinction rather than stating it.

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?

Use is implied by 'Lists datasets in the active workspace' and by the caveat that items are excluded, which hints an agent should call caliper_datasets_get for detail. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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