runmeter_export

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds important behavioral details: output is JSON or CSV, ordered newest-first, capped at limit rows, with a configurable since window and max limit of 10000. These details help the agent predict exactly what happens without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids repetition of schema defaults and stays compact.

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 read-only export tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, output format, ordering, and limits. Minor omissions are the exact format of 'since' and lack of explicit guidance vs sibling tools, but these do not critically impair usability.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does explain fmt values, since as a time window, and limit as a row cap with a maximum. The main gap is that the exact format of 'since' (e.g., ISO date, timestamp) is not specified, leaving some ambiguity.

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'), a clear resource ('raw runs'), and output formats ('JSON array or CSV string'), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like runmeter_get or runmeter_list. It focuses on bulk export rather than retrieval, summary, or mutation.

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 phrase 'for external analysis' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, and the behavior is described concretely. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it relative to sibling tools, so it falls short of perfect guidance.

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