analyze_sample_data_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core write-side effect: creating a file at an absolute path with extension-dependent formatting. It also explains the limit and units controls, though it does not mention overwrite behavior or return/status.

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 one-sentence purpose followed by a compact, well-labeled Args list. Every line adds actionable information with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the invocation surface well: what to pass, how the path affects format, and the default behavior. The only notable omission is explicit guidance against using sibling export tools, but the resource-specific wording mitigates that.

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%, and the Args block fully compensates: it adds the absolute-path requirement, the extension-to-format mapping, the numeric range and default for limit, and the allowed values and default for units. This goes well beyond the bare schema properties.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Export'), a concrete resource ('raw sample values'), a clear scope ('from the selection'), and destination file types ('text/CSV/HTML'). This clearly distinguishes it from audio-export or label-export siblings even without naming them.

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 right context: exporting raw measured sample data rather than audio or labels, with output format determined by extension. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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