list_curated

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

The description mentions the sorted return order, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it communicates that the tool is a read-only listing with no side effects, sufficiently transparent for a no-parameter tool.

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 two clear sentences: first states the action, second describes the return. Every word is necessary and front-loaded, with no superfluous content.

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 has no parameters and a simple output (sorted list of IDs), the description fully covers its purpose and return. The presence of an output schema is mentioned in context, but the description already sufficiently explains the return format.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable as there are no parameters to document.

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 every curated dataset ID, specifying the version context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_datasets (which likely filters) and top_n (which limits) by emphasizing 'every' and 'sorted', making its purpose 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?

No explicit usage guidance or differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., when to use list_curated vs search_datasets). The description is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios, which are present in sibling tools.

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