Dataset Inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a preview is 'small' and that the input is local, but says nothing about what happens on an invalid dataset (error vs partial report), whether the preview is truncated/paginated, or cost/latency for large files.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, but with a nested dataset object, low schema coverage, and two near-identical siblings, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond the name: which dataset types are accepted, what a preview contains, and how it differs from dataset_validate or dataset_render_preview.

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 effectively 0% for the two top-level parameters: sample_size, its default of 3, and the meaning of each type enum value (conversation_jsonl vs preference_jsonl vs prepared, etc.) are never explained. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb pair and resource: it validates a dataset and returns a preview. That is clearer than the bare name, but it never separates itself from close siblings like dataset_validate (which presumably also validates) or dataset_render_preview (which also previews), so an agent cannot tell which of the three to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite at least two overlapping siblings (dataset_validate, dataset_render_preview). The only implicit guidance is 'local dataset', which also leaves the relationship to dataset_prepare/prepared types unstated.

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