ingest_parsed_csv

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auto-detection and tool origins but lacks details on side effects, error handling, data persistence, or read-only nature. 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?

Two sentences, 27 words, no redundancy. Front-loads the purpose and key feature (auto-detection). Every sentence is essential 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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain parameter usage, output format, or limitations. Significant context missing for effective agent use.

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 covers all 7 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context about auto-detection and supported CSV types, but does not elaborate on filtering parameters or time range usage beyond schema descriptions. Meets baseline with minimal added semantics.

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 verb 'Import', the resource 'pre-parsed CSV from Eric Zimmerman tools', and highlights auto-detection. It distinguishes from sibling parsing tools (e.g., disk_parse_mft) by focusing on already parsed output.

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 explains when to use ('when you already have parsed output from EZ tools') and for what purpose ('for querying'). It provides context but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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