Disco

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations only indicate it's non-destructive and non-idempotent, the description explains the tool's role in a workflow (precursor to discovery_analyze), provides practical constraints (size limits, context window limitations, local vs hosted server considerations), and clarifies authentication behavior (optional API key with fallback to env var). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and efficiently organized. It starts with the core purpose and workflow integration, then provides clear parameter guidance. Every sentence serves a specific purpose with no wasted words. The bullet-point style parameter explanations are particularly effective for readability.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, workflow integration, multiple input methods) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete. It covers purpose, workflow context, parameter semantics, behavioral constraints, and authentication - everything needed for an agent to use this tool correctly without needing to infer missing information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive semantic information for all parameters. It explains the purpose of each parameter, when to use which one, practical constraints, and default behavior. The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema, especially with the mutually exclusive guidance about providing exactly one of file_url, file_path, or file_content.

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 states the specific action ('Upload a dataset file') and the resource ('dataset file'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning its relationship with 'discovery_analyze'. It provides a clear verb+resource combination with contextual differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call this before discovery_analyze') and how to use the output ('Pass the returned result directly to discovery_analyze as the file_ref argument'). It also offers clear alternatives within the tool itself (file_url vs file_path vs file_content) with context about when each is appropriate.

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