inspect_data

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states the tool does not modify data, and lists all returned metadata (mtype, scitype, shape, etc.), making behavior transparent.

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?

Concise and well-structured: starts with purpose, lists comprehensive return values, then specifies compatible handles. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough, detailing all return fields. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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% for the single parameter. Description adds context about valid handles (from load_data_source, split_data, or transform_data), but the schema already describes the parameter adequately, so minimal additional value.

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?

Clearly states it inspects a data handle and returns rich metadata. Verb 'inspect' and resource 'data handle' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings that produce handles, like load_data_source, split_data, transform_data.

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?

Explicitly states it works on handles from load_data_source, split_data, or transform_data, providing clear context for when to use it. Also notes it does not modify data, implying it is for inspection only.

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