fgis_dataset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'read' aligns with those. It adds a little context by listing the kinds of information returned (counts, coverage, manifest, local paths), but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or what happens for invalid dataset IDs.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core function and the main data categories returned. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only info tool with one parameter, especially with annotations covering safety. However, it lacks usage context versus siblings and does not explain return value structure or parameter semantics, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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% and the description does not explain the dataset_id parameter beyond its name. Since the ID is a single obvious parameter it is not as severe as a multi-parameter case, but the description still fails to add meaning such as expected format, source, or how to obtain valid IDs.

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?

States a clear verb ('read') and resource ('dataset info') and enumerates the specific content returned: counts, coverage, manifest, and local artifact paths. This distinguishes it from data-query tools like fgis_query_dataset, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as fgis_list_datasets, fgis_query_dataset, or fgis_catalog. The read action is implied, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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