inspect_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: missing counts include absent trailing cells and whitespace-only cells, entirely blank records are skipped by Python's CSV reader, and record 1 is treated as the header. It does not describe the exact output structure or error behavior, but for an inspection tool the disclosed edge-case semantics are valuable.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the report contents and header assumption, and the following sentences only add necessary parsing edge cases. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a simple one-parameter inspection tool, the description covers important CSV parsing semantics and edge cases. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, it does not fully document the parameter meaning or the shape of the returned counts, leaving some inference to the agent.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the text parameter is CSV content and explains how its records are interpreted, but it never names or explicitly describes the parameter or its expected format. Some semantic help is added, but the low schema coverage is not fully compensated.

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 and scope: report rows, empty cells, and ragged records for CSV text, with an explicit note that record 1 is the header. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like analyze_text or hash_text, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. A clear purpose, but not the strongest possible sibling differentiation.

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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It implies the tool is for inspecting CSV text, but an agent must infer that from the tool name and the parsing notes rather than being told when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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