export_data_table_as_json

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

The description asserts the operation is '(read-only)', while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The optional file write is a mutation surface, so the blanket read-only claim actively misleads the agent about side effects. This is a direct contradiction of the structured safety hints.

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 front-loaded sections; the scoping contrast with get_data_table_rows leads. The Returns line partially repeats the return fields already named in the first paragraph, a minor redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly enumerates the return shape (table_path, row_struct, row_count, json, written_to?). However, given destructiveHint=true it omits any warning that writing file_path touches disk and may overwrite, leaving a gap an agent needs.

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 the schema already documents table_path/data_table alias and file_path. The description adds only the 'written_to?' echo and UTF-8 framing, which is marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (Export a DataTable to JSON) with the native exporter, and explicitly contrasts with get_data_table_rows by naming the data types it preserves (TMap<Enum,SoftClass>, soft references, GameplayTags). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling row-readers. Slight ambiguity from the '(read-only)' framing keeps it from a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete reason to prefer this tool over get_data_table_rows: the native exporter preserves type information that the plain row reader loses. That is real comparative guidance, but it states no explicit 'when-not-to-use' or the trade-off of the optional file write.

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