csv_get_columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that only the header row is read, but omits error behavior (missing file, non-CSV), permissions, and any return format details. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then follows with a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 the description covers its purpose and the path parameter. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the header row is returned as (e.g., list of strings, single string), leaving a gap in completeness for an agent trying to use the result.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the path is relative to the workspace root, which is meaningful semantic information not present in the schema. It does not cover extension expectations or absolute paths, but the core parameter meaning is well supplemented.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), resource ('header row of a CSV file'), and scope ('just'), making the purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_file (whole file) and csv_to_json (conversion), even without naming them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read just the header row' – use it when only column names are needed. However, it never explicitly states when to use this over alternatives like read_file or csv_to_json, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance remains implicit.

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