profile_csv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and basic operation but lacks details about permissions needed, file size limitations, performance characteristics, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but could provide more behavioral context.

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 perfectly structured: purpose statement first, sibling differentiation second, parameter explanations third, return value fourth. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and information is appropriately front-loaded.

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 has an output schema (returns 'Human-readable DataProfile'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, differentiation, parameters, and output type adequately. For a 2-parameter tool with output schema, this is quite complete, though could mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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. It provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters: 'csv_path: Path to the CSV file' and 'sample_rows: Number of rows to sample for type inference.' This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements or constraints.

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 ('Profile a CSV file') and resource ('CSV file'), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'profile_data_source' by explaining it works on raw CSV files without needing an active workbook. This provides excellent differentiation from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('profile a CSV file before connecting it') and provides a direct comparison to 'profile_data_source' with clear guidance on when to choose this alternative ('Unlike profile_data_source (which needs an active workbook), this tool profiles a raw CSV file directly').

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