lerobot_hf_search_datasets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key traits such as the tool querying Hugging Face, the nature of results, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the impact of boolean flags like 'prefer_lerobot' or 'include_forge_registry'. The description is too minimal to provide adequate transparency.

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 with no redundant words. It is concise and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has 16 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too short. It does not explain how filters combine, default values, result format, or how to use the output. The tool is complex but the description provides minimal context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions a subset of parameters (robot, format, task, scale/size, compatibility hints). Many parameters (e.g., query, language_conditioned, simulation, demo_suitable, sort, limit, boolean flags) are omitted. While it adds some meaning for the mentioned parameters, it is insufficient for the 16-parameter 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 a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'robotics datasets'. It lists multiple filter criteria (robot, format, scale, size, task, compatibility hints), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like lerobot_hf_repo_info or lerobot_inspect_dataset_metadata.

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 usage for searching datasets by various criteria but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lerobot_hf_repo_info for repo info, lerobot_inspect_dataset_metadata for metadata inspection). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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