invariance_eval_dataset_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and openness profile. The description adds no further behavioral details such as error handling, return format, or side effects. Since the bar is lowered by annotations, a 3 is appropriate—it provides no additional context beyond what the annotations already convey.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the core action and object, with zero redundant words. It precisely captures the tool's purpose without elaboration, embodying conciseness.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description and schema cover the invocation. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear implication that the tool returns the requested eval dataset, as indicated by the name and description. No additional conditions or prerequisites are missing. A 4 is justified—it's complete for its simplicity, though a mention of the return payload would make it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the 'id' parameter is fully described in the schema with an example. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description doesn't compensate for anything missing.

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 'Get a single eval dataset by ID' uses a specific verb (Get), identifies the resource (eval dataset), and specifies the key (by ID). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like invariance_eval_dataset_list (which likely retrieves multiple) and invariance_eval_dataset_append_example. An agent can immediately understand the tool's singular purpose.

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 clearly implies usage when the agent has a specific dataset ID, and the parameter schema requires it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'by ID' phrasing provides strong contextual signal. No exclusions are mentioned, but given the simplicity of a get-by-id operation, the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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