project.export

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the outcome (zip backup) but omits behavioral details: destructiveness (does it modify the directory?), permissions needed, error handling, or side effects like overwriting existing backups. Very limited transparency.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and direct. No wasted words; every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks broader context like naming convention of the zip, storage location, or expectations about .agentctx/ directory state. Adequate but not rich.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description naturally doesn't add parameter info. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0-param tools, and the description does not contradict or miss any required semantics.

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 explicitly states the action ('creates a compressed zip backup') and the specific resource ('entire .agentctx/ directory'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'add_question' or 'graph.get_architecture' by being the only backup/export tool.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of when not to use it. The description is purely functional without context on ideal usage scenarios.

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