get_datastructures

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already identifies this as a safe read, and the description usefully adds the behavioral fact that get_datasets returns 404 on the ADaM side. However, it says nothing about the response shape, how the list is ordered, or pagination; so beyond the annotation, the added value is real but thin.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the 404 caveat follows immediately with no filler. The trailing example line is genuinely useful, though it slightly echoes the schema's 'latest' description.

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 read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this description is nearly complete. One gap remains: the standard enum also allows sdtm, sdtmig, sendig, cdash, and cdashig, but the description talks only about ADaM products. It is therefore unclear whether the tool applies to those standards or only to ADaM.

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 schema covers all three parameters at 100%, including the 'latest' version convention and the enum of standards. The example (standard='adamig', version='latest') illustrates typical values but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents; the baseline of 3 is therefore appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the list of analysis data structures (ADSL, BDS, etc.) for an ADaM product. It also names the concrete distinguishing difference from the sibling get_datasets, so an agent can identify the right tool without reading either schema.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: on the adam/adamig side, use this tool first to see which data structures exist. It also explains why the alternative fails: get_datasets will always return 404 for these standards. It also includes a worked parameter example, leaving little to infer.

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