sheet_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavioral detail: it promises not to put data rows into context, reports _meta.tokens_saved, and states that the first row is treated as the header. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only or describe error behavior, but the key consumption-relevant traits are disclosed.

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 bold front-loaded directive, a short parameter list, and a return-value list. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary and repeats some field details, but every sentence contributes practical value and the layout aids scanning.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining return values (dtype/null_pct/unique/top_values/stats) and the token-saving metric. However, the required file_path parameter is not explained at all, and there is no mention of failure modes or read-only guarantees, leaving a meaningful completeness gap.

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 documents the sheet parameter well — omission uses the active sheet and implies first-row-as-header — but it completely omits file_path, which is the only required parameter. The '参数：' section misleadingly lists only one parameter, leaving a required argument undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — '查看工作表的列级画像' (view column-level profile of a worksheet) — and enumerates the exact profile fields (类型、空值率、唯一数、Top 值、数值统计). The bold directive also positions it distinctly from siblings as the first tool to call before analysis, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: '开始分析任何表格前最该先调用的工具' (the first tool to call before analyzing any table), and justifies it by saying it saves a dozen probing calls. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so the exclusion guidance is left implicit.

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