get_adam_dataset_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates this is a read-only lookup and states the return type: a dictionary with dataset structure and variable list. It also discloses the default version behavior, but it does not mention error conditions, access requirements, or the behavior of the hidden headers_ parameter. Moderate disclosure, with gaps.

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 well structured with concise sections for summary, Args, Usage, and Returns, and the one-sentence summary is front-loaded. The usage examples duplicate some argument information but are useful for disambiguation. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 low-complexity lookup tool, the description covers the main dataset and version parameters, shows concrete usage examples, and states the return type since no output schema exists. It falls short only in not describing the exact dictionary shape, the headers_ parameter, or error/edge-case behavior, but these are minor for this tool's scope.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does for the two main parameters: dataset is explained with concrete examples (ADSL, ADAE, OCCDS), and adamig_version is given with accepted formats and a default. Usage examples reinforce parameter syntax. However, the third parameter headers_ appears in the schema but is never mentioned in the description, leaving an unexplained parameter.

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 opening sentence clearly states the action and resource: 'Get the structure and variables for a specific ADaM dataset.' The ADaM scope distinguishes it from sibling SDTMM/SEND/CDASH domain-structure tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named get_adam_variable_details. It is clear and specific, but slight sibling ambiguity keeps it below 5.

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 call syntax and usage examples, but no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like get_adam_variable_details or the other domain-structure getters. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or which sibling handles related but different cases, so selection is left to inference.

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