scratchjr_export_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the output format (JSON backup) and that referenced custom media is included, which is behaviorally relevant.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and output are front-loaded, and the format clarification earns its place by preventing confusion with the .sjr format.

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 single-parameter read-only export tool, the description is complete: it states the output format, scope, and key constraint. The schema documents the only required parameter, and annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, and the projectId parameter is already well documented as coming from list_projects or create_project. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and identifies the exact output: 'a JSON backup of a project and referenced custom media.' It also distinguishes itself from the tablet .sjr sharing format, which helps differentiate it from sibling backup/export tools.

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 makes it clear when this tool is appropriate: when a JSON backup including custom media is needed. The explicit 'not the tablet .sjr sharing format' provides a useful exclusion, though it does not name a specific alternative sibling to use instead.

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