rti_export_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It states the export action but does not mention side effects, whether it writes a file to disk or returns data, authentication requirements, or how the 'refresh' parameter affects behavior. 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 a single, tightly worded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and every phrase adds value, with no filler or unnecessary detail.

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?

While the output schema exists (so return values are covered) and the description is concise, the tool has two parameters with no explanation, and there is no behavioral or usage guidance. In the context of complex RTI tools, this description leaves too many gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'path' and 'refresh' parameters. While it lists the CSV fields, that does not clarify parameter meaning. Since the description fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions, parameter semantics are virtually nonexistent.

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's function: exporting every RTI request and appeal to a CSV file. It specifies the output format (CSV), the scope (all requests and appeals), and the included fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rti_list or rti_details that likely return data in-app rather than as a file.

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 phrase 'for tracking or analysis' implies a use case, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like rti_list or rti_download, nor are there any exclusions or conditions stated. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit differentiation.

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