csv_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reading from a cursor position) and the monitoring use case, but does not mention cursor advancement, return format, or potential errors. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 the primary action first and the use case second. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers purpose and use case but lacks information about return values, cursor handling, and edge cases. It is complete for a simple monitoring tool 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a bit of meaning to 'cursor' by explaining the 'since a cursor position' semantics, but this is already implied by the schema's 'Byte position to start from.' No major additional value beyond 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 reads 'new records appended to a CSV file since a cursor position,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like csv_inspect, csv_sample, and csv_filter by focusing on incremental reads for monitoring.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for monitoring actively-written files,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.

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