sw_describe_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses the verb 'view' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it disclose any prerequisites, error conditions, or side effects. This is a minimal level of transparency.

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, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output, with no redundant words or filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and the types of information returned. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines and any note about read-only behavior, making it slightly less than fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the dataset_id parameter beyond the schema's 'Dataset Id' title. It merely alludes to 'generated datasets' in the tool description, which is a slight hint that the ID must refer to a generated dataset, but it provides no format, source, or validation details. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 active verb '查看' (view) and specifies the resource ('已生成数据集') and the specific outputs (dimensions, statistical distribution, available fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sw_list_datasets, which likely list datasets, and sw_validate, which validates.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a read-only inspection role but doesn't mention which scenarios call for it or exclude others. The context is clear from the tool name but no alternatives are referenced.

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