generate_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It details the report's contents (overview, flags, per-column summaries) and side effects (saves markdown and PNGs). It does not mention resource usage or error conditions but is otherwise transparent for a read-only operation.

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 well-structured with a single paragraph and bullet points. Every sentence is informative, front-loads the main purpose, and includes alternatives at the end with no wasted verbiage.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the return value (file path), report contents, and side effects. It lacks explanation for the 'table' parameter and error conditions but is otherwise sufficient for effective use.

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 explains file_path and output_dir implicitly but fails to describe the 'table' parameter. This partial coverage leaves meaning gaps, though the described parameters add value over the 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 clearly states the tool generates a complete EDA markdown report for the entire dataset, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that for single-column inspection, one should use get_column_summary or get_diagnostic_plot.

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 positions this as the main tool for thorough end-to-end analysis and provides clear alternatives for quick inspection of a single column, giving both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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