get_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. 'Gets details' implies a read-only lookup, which is enough to establish safety, but there is no disclosure of error behavior for unknown URIs, permissions, or the v1-endpoint dependency at call time. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and the parameter note follows immediately. Minor waste: the 'API v1 only' restriction is repeated in the body and the Args section, which could be stated once.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers purpose, API-version scope, and URI format – the essentials an agent needs to invoke it. The remaining gap is failure behavior on an unknown URI, which is minor given a documented return schema.

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 coverage is 0% and the parameter is documented only as a bare string, so the description must compensate – and it does by giving the expected URI shape ('s3://bucket/path') plus the v1-only constraint on the parameter itself. That is concrete format guidance beyond the schema, though it does not state whether other schemes (file://, custom backends) are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets details of a specific dataset') and implicitly separates itself from list_datasets/list_dataset_events by targeting a single dataset. The parenthetical that v2 uses Assets instead further pins down what this tool is for.

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 'v1 API only - v2 uses Assets' note is a real usage condition that tells an agent when this tool applies versus the v2 concept. However, it never tells the agent how to obtain a dataset_uri (e.g., call list_datasets first) or what to do when the dataset is missing, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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