List Datasets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds context by listing the specific data fields returned and noting pagination. No contradictions with annotations, and no need to disclose destructive behavior.

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 sentences are front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by compact details on output fields and usage. No waste; every clause adds meaningful information.

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 list tool, the description is complete given the presence of an output schema and annotation. It covers both dataset types, key output attributes, and usage hints. No critical gaps.

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%, with each parameter (pool, limit, offset, response_format) already documented in the input schema. The description merely echoes 'filter by pool' and 'paginate' without adding new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'ZFS datasets (filesystems and zvols)' and enumerates the returned attributes (space, snapshot usage, quota, compression, mountpoint). This makes it distinct from siblings like list_pools and list_snapshots.

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 practical context: 'Filter by pool and paginate for large systems.' This indicates when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use it relative to other list tools.

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