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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations: billing semantics (owner charged against weekly coverage then Credits), explicit statement that no agent is launched, and that sources/skills are untrusted reference data. Some of this (version requirements for updates/removal) describes other tools rather than this one, which is noise but does not contradict anything.

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?

Dense and mostly front-loaded on scope, but several sentences are about adjacent tools (updates/removal versioning, skills sharing authority) rather than this export operation, diluting focus for a read-only tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with four undocumented parameters and no explanation of include_history or pagination, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this confidently.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at space_id ('Personal when omitted'); limit, cursor, and especially include_history are never explained, leaving an agent unable to know what include_history changes or how pagination works.

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?

States a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('entries in one currently authorized private Space') with the default scope noted. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related private_knowledge_list / private_knowledge_search / private_knowledge_history siblings, so an agent cannot tell why 'export' differs from 'list'.

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?

One explicit alternative is given: 'use private_space_personal for explicit first-use setup.' That is genuinely useful routing. But there is no guidance on when to pick export over private_knowledge_list/search/history, which are the most likely alternatives for a read of knowledge.

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