inspect_dataset

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), and the description gives minimal behavioral info: it inspects and returns summaries. No mention of read-only nature, side effects, required permissions, or limitations. With no annotation support, the description should disclose more.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the main action. Efficient, but could benefit from a bit more detail on parameters or behavior without becoming verbose.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, with 6 parameters and no parameter descriptions in schema or description, the tool is underspecified for an agent to use correctly. The description is too brief for the complexity.

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% (only project_root and config_path have descriptions in schema). The description adds no parameter details, leaving 6 parameters (including id_columns, time_column, timeout_seconds) without guidance. It only hints that data_path should refer to one of the listed file types.

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 explicitly states the verb 'inspect' and the resource types (CSV, TSV, RDS, Parquet, Stata), and mentions returning machine-readable summaries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that run analyses or manage projects.

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 implies usage when inspecting data files, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. It's left to the agent to infer from context.

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