get_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that max_rows truncates results and that pds_list enables searching across datasets, which aligns with openWorldHint. However, it does not explain conflict cases (e.g., both dataset and pds_list provided) or return format beyond the output schema.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence gives the purpose, the second details invocation modes and a key parameter. Information is front-loaded and each sentence contributes uniquely.

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 complexity (4 params, multiple invocation modes) and presence of an output schema, the description covers primary use cases well but lacks details on edge cases like providing only dataset (without member), behavior when both modes are mixed, or file format considerations. A bit more detail would make it complete.

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 carries full burden. It covers three of four parameters (dataset, member, pds_list, max_rows) with usage notes: pds_list is comma/space-separated, max_rows truncates, and dataset/member work together or pds_list alone. This adds significant meaning beyond raw schema, though the exact format of dataset is omitted.

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 'Fetch dataset/member content' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cobol by being generic, and explains two modes of invocation. However, the exact scope (e.g., sequential vs. partitioned datasets) is slightly ambiguous.

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 provides two modes of use (dataset+member or pds_list) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_cobol or get_job_file_content. It lacks explicit 'when-not' or alternative references.

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