read_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that GAUSS matrices only hold numbers and warns that a header row would be read as data unless skipped, which is a valuable behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like overwriting an existing workspace variable, error handling on missing files, or the exact return value.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. It front-loads the primary action in the first sentence and the key parameter explanation in the second. There is no fluff, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits details about the 'name' parameter (e.g., whether it overwrites existing variables), behavior on non-numeric data (error vs. conversion), and error scenarios. While the output schema may describe return values, the description still lacks sufficient context for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for parameters. The description adds context for skip_header (explaining header rows and numeric-only constraint), but does not explain the meaning of 'path' (likely file location) or 'name' (the matrix name in workspace) beyond what the schema already implies. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate more but only addresses one of three parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool loads a CSV file into the workspace as a matrix, which is a clear action on a resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like write_csv (which writes) and get_matrix/put_matrix (which operate on matrices), and the action of reading from a CSV is unique.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It only hints at numerical data limitations, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing between read_csv and other tools for data import/export.

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