get-dataset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the return includes 'metadata and version information', which hints at read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it document side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a simple retrieval, this is marginal but not fully 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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for example, and one for expected return. It front-loads the main action and uses no filler words. 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 (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and return type. It lacks details on behavior when dataset is not found, both parameters provided, or authorization. However, for a straightforward retrieval, it is largely complete. A slightly richer description would merit a 5.

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% description coverage for the two parameters (dataset_id, dataset_name). The description partially compensates by stating 'by name or ID' and providing an example using name. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter but does not specify if they are exclusive, optional, or have format constraints. The meaning is improved over the bare schema but still ambiguous.

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 'Get dataset metadata by name or ID', specifying the verb (get) and resource (dataset metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add-dataset-examples' and 'get-dataset-examples' which handle examples, and 'list-datasets' which lists all datasets, by focusing on retrieval by specific identifier.

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 an example usage ('Show me the dataset "my-dataset"') which implies typical use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list-datasets' or 'get-dataset-examples', nor does it mention conditions where it should not be used. The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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