twilize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: reading CSV files, inferring column types, classifying columns semantically, and returning a summary. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, file size limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'inspect').

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 with purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return description. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter section could be slightly more concise. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 3 parameters and complex functionality.

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 (schema inference with classification), no annotations, but with output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, all parameters, and the return format. Could benefit from more behavioral context about limitations or performance, but covers core functionality adequately.

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%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'csv_path' as file path, 'sample_rows' for type inference sampling, and 'encoding' for file encoding with default value. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('inspect', 'return') and resources ('CSV file', 'inferred schema with column classification'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'profile_csv' by focusing on schema inference rather than data profiling, and from 'csv_to_dashboard' by not creating outputs.

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 context for analyzing CSV structure before processing, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'profile_csv' or 'inspect_hyper'. It provides clear prerequisites (CSV file path) but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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