pku_dataset_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only the core listing behavior and says nothing about pagination, returned file metadata, error cases, rate limits, or whether this is a best-effort workaround with caveats. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds only the useful platform-context rationale. Every word earns its place, and the description is neither bloated nor underspecified enough to feel like a placeholder.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the description is minimally viable: an agent knows to provide a dataset DOI and can expect a file list. But with no output schema and no annotations, the lack of any statement about response shape, pagination defaults, or how the per_page parameter affects results leaves the agent with some uncertainty.

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%, so per the baseline this dimension should receive 3 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description does clarify that 'identifier' is a DOI by saying 'by its DOI', but that repeats the schema's own example, so no substantial meaning is added.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Enumerate'), a concrete resource ('files belonging to one dataset'), and a precise selection method ('by its DOI'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling pku_search_files, which would search rather than list an entire dataset's files.

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 phrasing implies the tool is for retrieving a dataset's files when you have its DOI, and the rationale 'since the platform does not expose a per-dataset file listing API' gives useful context. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against pku_search_files.

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