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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return format (JSON Lines, one file per line) and a concrete size cap (up to 1 MiB inline), which is valuable for predicting truncation behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the output format and size limit are front-loaded, and the alternative export path follows as a secondary clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape (JSON Lines) and size behavior. It leaves one gap: it says 'up to 1 MiB inline' without explaining what happens past that threshold, which an agent invoking it would want to know.

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 all four parameters (scope, api_token, convention, workspace_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the scope concept and adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific verb (export) and resource (the files table for a scope) plus the output encoding (JSON Lines, one file per line). It also distinguishes this tool from the HTTP /index/export route, which returns a full SQLite copy with history and links.

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 clearly routes the agent to the alternative when a full SQLite copy with history and links is needed, implicitly telling the agent to use this tool for a flat files-table dump. It does not, however, address when to prefer this over sibling tools like query_index or list_files, and the alternative it names is an HTTP endpoint rather than an MCP sibling.

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