export_agenda_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return value, that output_file writes a new .md file under the server directory, and critically that an existing file is never overwritten. It omits what happens when calendars is left unset, any permission or size limits, and whether behaviour varies with tz beyond labelling.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is rendered and in what shape, then the return, then the optional side effect. No restatement of the name and no filler.

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 four-parameter export tool with an output schema covering the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. The one real gap is the undocumented calendars parameter, which an agent cannot reason about from schema alone at 0% coverage.

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 must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: week_start gets a concrete date example and a scope (seven days from it), output_file gets a location constraint and a non-destructive guarantee, and tz is linked to how times are labelled. The calendars parameter receives no explanation at all, which keeps this from a 5.

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 (render) and a precise resource (seven days starting at week_start) plus the output format (Markdown with one heading per day and a bullet per event). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like agenda or calendar_overview by output format, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the Markdown framing suggests use when a formatted export is wanted instead of a conversational listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance or reference to the sibling tools that overlap with this capability.

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