⚠️ FILE WRITE: Export a table or read-only SELECT/PRAGMA/EXPLAIN query to a CSV file. Can write absolute paths. Provide exactly one of table or query.

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It warns about absolute path writing but does not explain file overwrite behavior, encoding defaults, or error handling. Some traits are covered, but significant gaps remain.

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 to the point, but it redundantly repeats the title. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Still, no wasteful sentences.

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 complexity of 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter details, or error conditions. The tool writes files, and critical context like file overwrite or permissions is missing.

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%, yet the description provides no information about parameters beyond mentioning 'table or query'. The 9 parameters (including append, encoding, delimiter, etc.) are completely undescribed, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types, which is insufficient.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 explicitly says to provide exactly one of table or query, which is key usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, though sibling context provides that.

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