export_pt5_csv

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions output fields but omits key behaviors: overwrite policy, file encoding, error handling, validation of input file existence, or side effects. Minimal disclosure for a file export operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and then content list. Efficient but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for fields). No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools exist. Description fails to explain return value (success/error), CSV header details, delimiter, or handling of missing data flags. Incomplete for a file export tool.

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% with descriptions for both input_path and output_path. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema provides, thus baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it exports PT5 sample data to CSV, listing specific fields (timestamps, current, voltage, markers, missing data flags). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pt5_samples which return raw data in other formats.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pt5_samples or analyze_pt5_trend. Does not mention scenarios or preconditions.

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