auto_explore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It outlines the chain of operations but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has other side effects. For a macro that includes 'load_source', this lack of safety information is a significant gap.

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 very concise, starting with 'The flagship blind-audit macro' and a one-line function statement. The chain is presented compactly, and the entire description is minimal while still conveying the tool's core purpose and flow.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context: what the returned introduction actually contains, what input path expects, what hints do, and whether any side effects occur. For a complex macro chaining multiple steps, this is not complete enough for an agent to use it safely and effectively.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the meaning of 'path' or 'hints'. The only hint is the phrase 'unknown dataset' suggesting path points to a dataset, but this is not explicit. With two parameters, one required, and no parameter documentation, the description fails to add value beyond the raw schema field names.

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 identifies this as an auto-exploration macro that returns a paste-ready introduction to an unknown dataset. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing the chained pipeline (detect_pattern → detect_metadata → load_source → modality classify → data_card), establishing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have an unknown dataset and want a full automated introduction. It implies this is the go-to macro compared to running individual steps, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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