Profile CSV schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the computed statistics (types, emptiness, distinctness, min/max/mean), which is useful, but says nothing about failure modes such as missing files, oversized files, or malformed rows.

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 dense sentence with no filler, front-loading row count before the per-column breakdown. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope, though the abrupt fragment style reads as a field list rather than a description.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so explicitly and completely. The remaining gap is contextual routing — nothing tells the agent when profiling beats summarize_csv or query_csv in this eight-tool family.

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 100%: the single 'file' parameter is documented in-schema as a path relative to CSV_INSIGHTS_DIR with an example. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and precisely enumerates the resource: row count plus per-column type, empty count, distinct count, samples, and min/max/mean. An agent can tell this is a statistical profiling operation rather than a query or listing. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from sibling summarize_csv, which reads similarly.

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 content implies the use case (exploratory profiling of a CSV's columns), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against the very similar summarize_csv, query_csv, and group_by siblings. An agent must infer the routing itself.

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