get_dataset_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly describes progress steps, completion state, download URLs, and file metadata, giving a solid picture of how the tool behaves. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or what happens if the build fails, but the status-oriented design is sufficiently transparent.

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 organized with Purpose, Parameters, Returns, and Example sections. It is not overly long and each section adds useful information, though the Returns section partly restates the opening sentence about download links.

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 single-parameter status tool, the description covers the essential usage: the required parameter, the return values, and a full example. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail every field, and nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 schema only provides the parameter name and type, but the description fully compensates by describing dataset_id as 'The ID of the dataset to check' and providing a concrete example. This makes the parameter's meaning and format clear despite 0% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('dataset build') and explicitly includes download links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_gravity_task_status by focusing on dataset build status. The example reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 implies this tool is for checking build status and fetching download links, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like build_dataset, cancel_dataset, or get_gravity_task_status. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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