profile_dataset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Inspect' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the listed outputs (schema, types, cardinality, null counts) indicate the behavioral scope. It does not disclose edge cases like file size limits or error behavior, but for a simple profiling tool, this is adequate. The description is transparent about what the tool returns and its non-mutating nature.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core functionality is front-loaded, and the usage hint is a single clause. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It does not describe the return format in detail (e.g., structure of the schema or how null counts are presented), but the list of output types gives enough context for an agent to call it correctly. Given the simplicity, the description is nearly complete; a 4 is appropriate.

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 only parameter (csv_path) has 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states it is an absolute path. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Inspect a CSV file') and the exact outputs (schema, inferred data types, cardinality, null counts). It also names a specific downstream tool (generate_workbook), which helps distinguish it from siblings like publish_to_cloud or preview_workbook. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives an explicit usage hint: 'Useful before calling generate_workbook.' This provides a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but given the sibling set, none are profiling tools, so the guidance is sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of exclusions or prerequisites.

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