analyze_file_structure

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

The description explains that the tool samples records and detects patterns, indicating a read-only, non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose potential performance impacts on large files or any required permissions, which are not covered by missing annotations.

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 compact and well-structured with a brief intro, bullet points for detectable patterns, a usage hint, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema, the description's mention of 'Analysis results including field usage statistics and patterns' is sufficient. It covers purpose, parameters, usage context, and return value, leaving no major gaps for this straightforward analysis tool.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the bare input schema: 'file_name' is described as 'Name of the Universe file to analyze' and 'sample_size' as 'Number of records to sample (default 100)'. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable, though constraints like min/max values are missing.

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 ('analyze') and resource ('file structure') with method ('sampling records') and outcome ('infer field usage patterns'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'describe_file' and 'list_dictionary' by focusing on actual data usage rather than dictionary metadata.

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 'Useful when dictionary is incomplete or for understanding actual data usage', providing a clear context for when to use this tool. It implies alternatives exist (dictionary tools) but does not explicitly list them or state when not to use it.

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