Describe one Catence dataset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, and enumerates what the tool returns. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'compact schema' or describe any potential errors or prerequisites. The added context is useful but not extensive.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose and output scope, and the second adds the read-only nature. It is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It lists the specific aspects returned (schema, filters, provenance, coverage) and clarifies that it is read-only. Minor gaps exist, such as not explaining the 'dataset' parameter or what 'compact schema' entails, but these are not critical for a low-complexity read tool.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'dataset' with only a type and minLength. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain this parameter. The phrase 'one cataloged dataset' hints that 'dataset' identifies a specific dataset, but does not specify whether it's a name, ID, or how to obtain it. This minimal guidance does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool 'Read a compact schema, permitted filters/groupings, provenance fields, and coverage for one cataloged dataset.' The verb 'Read' is specific, and the resource is a single cataloged dataset. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'describe_data' by emphasizing the scope ('one cataloged dataset').

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 when to use this tool: when you need metadata about a specific dataset, such as its schema, filters, provenance, and coverage. It also notes 'Read-only,' indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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