stata_get_data_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the mechanism: run `describe`, read the session's latest run log, and return basic info to the caller. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a dataset must be loaded), potential side effects on the session, or what happens on failure.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action (`运行 describe`) and then explains the mechanism and result. There is no redundant information or filler; every phrase contributes meaning.

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?

The description is adequate for a zero-parameter tool, but it leaves gaps: the exact meaning of '基本信息' is vague, there is no mention of required session/dataset state, and it does not clarify how this differs from `stata_get_data_schema`. Given there is no output schema or annotations, some additional context would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information missing, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs. The empty schema is consistent with the description's focus on an action without arguments.

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 the action: it runs Stata's `describe` command and returns basic information about the current dataset to the caller. It conveys the resource and outcome specifically, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling `stata_get_data_schema`.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like `stata_get_data_schema` or `stata_get_results`. The intended context is implied by the tool name and description, but there are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.

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