export_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions saving to file and listing when no name, but lacks details on side effects such as file overwriting, permissions required, or whether the operation is destructive. The export action suggests mutation, but the description does not clarify if it modifies the database.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences in Chinese, front-loading the purpose and key behavior. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given four parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main functionality (list vs export) and parameter defaults. However, it lacks details on file format, overwrite behavior, and error conditions, which are important for a file-writing tool.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that omitting name lists all objects, and for output_dir it specifies the default path from environment variable or hardcoded fallback. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool exports PL/SQL source code (stored procedures, functions, packages) and saves to file. It also mentions that omitting the name parameter lists all source objects, distinguishing it from siblings like query_db and list_tables.

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 implies usage for exporting source code but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like query_db or get_table_schema. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, providing only basic context.

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