summarize_csv_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the operation (reporting rows and columns) which is a read-only analysis, but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or disclose edge cases like malformed CSVs, empty files, or large files. The return value is described as 'a string describing the file's dimensions,' which is helpful, but behavioral detail is thin.

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?

Extremely concise: a single summary sentence plus minimal Args/Returns documentation. Every sentence earns its place, with zero waste or fluff.

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?

This is a simple single-param read-only tool with an output schema. The description explains purpose, parameter format, and return type. For the tool's low complexity, it is reasonably complete. Minor gaps: no handling of error cases or explicit confirmation of non-destructive read behavior, but these are minor for a summary 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does: 'filename: Name of the CSV file in the /data directory (e.g., 'sample.csv')' adds the directory constraint and a concrete example format, which goes beyond the bare schema field. Baseline for 1 param with 0% coverage would be 4, and this delivers exactly that.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Summarize a CSV file by reporting its number of rows and columns.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling summarize_parquet_file (CSV vs parquet). Could be improved but purpose is clear.

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?

It states the file must be in the /data directory, providing some context, and the tool is clearly for CSV vs parquet. However, it doesn't explicitly note when to use this vs summarize_parquet_file or any exclusions, relying on the format in the name.

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