ingest_parsed_csv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-detection of CSV type but does not describe whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., file persistence), or the response format. With a score of 3, it provides basic context but lacks depth.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action ('Import pre-parsed CSV...') and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, so the description should hint at return values. It only says 'for querying,' which is vague. Filtering behavior is implied by parameters but not explained. More detail on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter. The description adds marginal value by noting auto-detection, but this is already reflected in the 'auto' default for csv_type. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 imports pre-parsed CSV from Eric Zimmerman tools for querying, which differentiates it from sibling tools that parse raw data (e.g., disk_parse_mft). The verb 'import' and specific resource 'pre-parsed CSV from EZ tools' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Useful when you already have parsed output from EZ tools,' which implies when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides some differentiation, earning a 4.

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