export_captures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it exports data without writing a file (clarifying output as a string), supports filtering by tag, and specifies default values. However, it misses details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which would enhance 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations and return details in a structured format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral aspects like no file writing, leaving no critical gaps for agent understanding.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the purpose of 'format' (Markdown or JSON with default) and 'tag_filter' (optional filtering with an example), compensating fully for the schema's lack of details and providing clear parameter 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 clearly states the specific action ('Export all captures or a tag-filtered subset') and the output formats ('as Markdown or JSON'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_captures' or 'list_by_tag' which likely have different functions. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context for usage by mentioning the tag-filtering option and default format, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_study_deck' or 'search_captures'. It implies usage for exporting data but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions.

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