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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the output formats and does not disclose side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or error behavior. The tool is likely a read operation but this is not confirmed. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise, with two sentences. The version note ('v0.4.0 Unified Prompt Templates feature') adds context but is not essential for invocation. The core purpose is stated upfront, and there is no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized.

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?

The description covers the action and format but omits important context such as whether the template must exist, what happens on failure, or any related usage guidance. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-value explanation, but the missing usage and behavior details leave the description only minimally complete for a simple tool.

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?

The input schema describes template_id and format, but user_uuid lacks a description (coverage 67%). The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides; it repeats the format options already in the schema. It does not clarify the purpose or constraints of user_uuid, so it does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 a specific action ('Export a prompt template') and the target resource, with explicit format options (Markdown or JSON). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get' or 'list' through the verb 'export', though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_prompt_template or list_prompt_templates. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would choose export over retrieval. The description lacks any usage context.

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