list_datasets

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'with summary statistics,' which hints at the output content but doesn't specify which statistics or whether there is pagination. Since the annotation covers the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich in behavioral detail.

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, focused sentence ('List all indexed datasets with summary statistics.'). It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description is adequate. It communicates the core purpose and the inclusion of summary statistics. However, more detail about return format (e.g., what statistics) could be helpful, but given the tool's simplicity and the existence of sibling tools like summarize_dataset, this is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description adds no unnecessary confusion.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all indexed datasets with summary statistics.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('indexed datasets'), and adds relevant detail ('with summary statistics'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_repos (which lists repositories) and describe_dataset (which focuses on a single 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 gives clear context: it lists all indexed datasets, implying it's for getting an overview of available data. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's simplicity and distinct name (datasets vs. repos) make the usage obvious. This aligns with a 'clear context, no exclusions' rating.

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