pull_monitor_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is read-only ('Download'), which is helpful, but fails to disclose behavior on missing runs, required permissions, or side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 brief (two sentences plus bullet list) and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary details, though the bullet list partially repeats the main statement. Efficient overall.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description does not address edge cases (e.g., no latest run) or integration context among many sibling tools. It covers the core use case but leaves some gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., clarifying 'monitor_id' usage or 'api_key' optionality). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Download the latest monitor run's results as a CSV file', identifying the action, resource, and format. It distinguishes from the sibling 'pull_monitor_results' by specifying CSV format, but does not differentiate from 'pull_job_csv', which also downloads CSV files.

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 'Use when' bullet explicitly lists scenarios: wanting latest monitor run as CSV and preferring over 'pull_monitor_results' for CSV format. It provides comparative guidance but lacks explicit 'when not to use' instructions.

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