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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true so the safety profile is covered, and the description usefully adds the 1 MiB inline cap (a truncation/size constraint) and the JSON Lines shape. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations can't express; it could go further by noting what happens past the cap.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior (what is exported and in what format) followed by the alternative for a fuller copy. No filler; every clause carries a distinct piece of information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-format burden and does state JSON Lines, one file per line. Combined with the 1 MiB cap and readOnly annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination/truncation behavior past the cap is left implicit.

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 100%, so the enum for scope, the api_token header fallback, convention, and workspace_id are all documented in the schema. The description's 'for a scope' adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('The files table for a scope as JSON Lines') and specifies the output format, so an agent knows this exports file metadata rather than querying or listing it. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like query_index or list_files, so it stops short of a 5.

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 distinguishes from a full SQLite copy by pointing to the GET /index/export HTTP endpoint, which is helpful routing, but that alternative is an HTTP path rather than a sibling MCP tool. No guidance is given on when to prefer this over query_index or list_files, leaving MCP-level usage implied.

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