dataset_status

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the read-only nature ('Show') and what data is returned. However, it lacks additional behavioral context such as required permissions, potential delays, or whether the working tree size is computed on demand. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 sentence of 14 words, with no redundant information. Every word is necessary to convey the tool's purpose and output, meeting the conciseness standard effectively.

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 read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It omits parameter description and any mention of error cases or performance implications. The presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates the need to detail return values, but the missing parameter semantics is a gap.

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%, yet the description does not mention the sole parameter 'dataset_path' at all. The agent cannot infer from the description what value to provide or its format (e.g., file path, identifier). The description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 the specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'golden dataset' with explicit attributes (name, current version, working tree size). It distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on entries or other operations, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list_entries instead). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues for the agent to decide between this and sibling tools.

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