get_dataset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what the report includes and implies version resolution behavior ('resolved'). No contradiction with annotations, though return format and error handling are not disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that concisely lists all key deliverables: resolved dataset, upstream commit, entry counts, archive coverage. No waste or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly outlines what the tool reports, which is especially valuable since there is no output schema. The sibling list confirms this tool is distinct and focused.

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 single parameter 'version' is fully documented in the schema with its description 'Retail patch, full client build, build number, or latest.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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's purpose: 'Report the resolved WoW retail dataset, upstream commit, entry counts, and archive coverage.' The verb 'Report' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like lookup_api or get_widget_methods.

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 implies usage when dataset info is needed (e.g., checking upstream commit or entry counts). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or references to alternatives like list_versions. However, no misleading guidance is present.

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