get_cdashig_domain_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 transparently explains that omitting cdashig_version uses the latest version, that include_codelists defaults to False for faster responses, and that enabling it retrieves full codelist terms. It also states the return shape as a dict with domain metadata and field lists. Missing auth/rate-limit details are minor for this kind of read-oriented tool.

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 compact, front-loaded, and well-organized with Args, Returns, and Example sections. It loses a point because the example function name omits 'ig' (get_cdash_domain_structure instead of get_cdashig_domain_structure), which could mislead an agent despite the overall clarity.

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 tool with sparse schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: required domain, optional version behavior, codelist toggle, return format, and an example. More detail on headers_ or the exact field attribute structure would improve it, but nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: domain gets concrete examples, cdashig_version gets format examples, and include_codelists gets behavior and performance rationale. The main weakness is that headers_ is described as a dict while the schema types it as a string, creating ambiguity for that 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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get complete domain structure with all fields for a CDASH domain.' This makes the tool's scope clear and implies it is for whole-domain retrieval rather than field-level lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_cdashig_field_details or get_sdtm_domain_structure.

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 phrase 'complete domain structure with all fields' implies when the tool should be used, and the example shows a realistic call. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over related sibling tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing.

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