export_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It discloses the output format ('structured manifest ready to write to disk'), implying a read-only operation with no side effects. Additional detail on permissions or rate limits is absent but acceptable given the tool's nature.

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, no redundant text. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every word serves a purpose.

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 adequately explains what the tool produces and in what format. Given no output schema, the description compensates with the 'structured manifest' detail. However, it lacks information on how to use the manifest or any prerequisites.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions fully cover syntax. The description adds context about the output (structured manifest) but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Export' and the resource 'complete project scaffold', listing specific files. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_template and generate_tailwind_config by emphasizing a multi-file scaffold output.

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?

The description implies when to use (to export a scaffold), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to sibling tools like generate_template or generate_tailwind_config.

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