rhino_schedule_export_csv

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

The annotation readOnlyHint:false already indicates a write operation; the description confirms 'Write' without contradiction. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond that: no mention of overwriting behavior, file creation requirements, error handling, or what happens with empty rows. Since annotations are minimal, the description carries the burden and fails to disclose these critical traits.

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, efficient sentence with zero redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and resource. There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has a schema that defines the three parameters (path, rows, columns) with descriptions, and an output schema exists. The description explains the high-level purpose and the source of rows, which is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it omits usage guidelines beyond the implicit link to schedule tools and does not mention potential side effects (e.g., file overwrites). Given the schema compensates for parameter details, the description is minimally adequate but not complete.

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%, meaning the description does not echo any parameter info. Although the schema itself provides descriptions for path and columns, the description only hints at 'rows' by linking to schedule tools. It does not explain the 'path' parameter or the 'columns' default behavior, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema. This is a minimal contribution.

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 ('Write') and resource ('rows produced by any rhino_schedule_* tool' to CSV). It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from other export tools (e.g., OBJ/STL exports) by explicitly scoping to schedule rows. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies the correct usage: 'rows produced by any rhino_schedule_* tool' indicates this tool is for exporting schedule outputs. It provides clear context (use after a schedule tool) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., other export tools) or when NOT to use it. While not as explicit as naming alternatives, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the right scenario.

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