Metis · Data Analyst — Profile Dataset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries transparency. It discloses the tool never modifies the source file, performs a non-blocking PII column name scan, and returns a JSON structure with specific fields. This provides good insight into behavior, though no mention of permissions or rate limits.

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 concise (about 10 lines), with a clear structure: purpose statement, supported formats, behavioral notes, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with main action.

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 output schema exists (though not shown) and only two simple parameters, the description covers essential aspects: supported formats, safety, PII scan, and return structure. It does not elaborate on every output field but that is acceptable with an output schema present.

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 parameter descriptions in the tool description are critical. The description provides clear explanations: 'path' as absolute local path, 'sample_rows' as including rows in output if > 0. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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?

Description explicitly states the verb 'Profile' and the resource 'tabular dataset', detailing specific outputs (shape, dtypes, null %, unique counts, distributions). It also lists supported formats and a PII scan, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like clean_dataset (which modifies) and compare_profiles (which compares).

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?

Description indicates when to use by specifying supported file formats and emphasizing it never modifies the source file, implying safe profiling. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes the tool's role clear. No explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the guidance is adequate.

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