Load Csv

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that a new dataset is created as a side effect, that the path must resolve on the machine running the server, and it enumerates the return keys (dataset_id, rows, columns, column_names). It does not cover failure behavior (missing file, malformed rows, delimiter sniffing) or size limits, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Every line earns its place — purpose first, then the two parameters, then the return shape. The docstring-style Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly verbose for two parameters but is front-loaded and skimmable.

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?

With no output schema, the Returns section is necessary and present, and with no annotations the new-dataset side effect had to be stated, which it is. Only error conditions and any file-size/format constraints are missing for a tool that mutates server state.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: file_path is clarified as a full path on the server host, and delimiter is explained as the column separator with its default. The server-side path constraint is genuine added meaning beyond {"type":"string"}; encoding/quoting options are absent.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Load a CSV file from disk into a new dataset") and its format-specificity implicitly separates it from load_excel, load_json, and load_parquet. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating a selection rule, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (file must exist locally), and no routing to alternative loaders for other formats. Usage is only implied by the word "CSV" and the "from disk" phrasing.

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