export_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main action (writing to CSV) and the return value (path), but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing files or behavior when no rows are collected. This is moderate disclosure.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Write all collected rows to a CSV file') and then states the return value. No wasted words; it efficiently conveys the core behavior.

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 tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks explicit usage guidelines and parameter semantics, making it not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly in all contexts.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'filename' parameter at all. The schema provides only a default value, so the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter explanation, leaving the agent to infer that filename controls the output file name.

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 function: writing all collected rows to a CSV file and returning the path. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_records or add_record, which handle data retrieval and manipulation, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'all collected rows' implies the tool is used after data collection, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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