list_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get list') without explaining return format (e.g., structure, pagination), permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's read-only (implied but not confirmed). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like scope or differentiation from siblings. Every word earns its place, but it's under-specified rather than concise.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, return format) or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool effectively beyond basic parameters. A list tool with pagination needs more guidance.

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 clear descriptions for 'offset', 'limit', and 'unnamed' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'unnamed' affects results or typical use cases for pagination. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 list of datasets' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('datasets'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., all datasets vs. filtered) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dataset' (which retrieves a specific dataset) or 'get_dataset_items' (which gets items within a dataset).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_datasets' over 'get_dataset' (for a single dataset) or other list tools like 'list_actors', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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