Export With Fidelity Report

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

The description discloses that the fidelity report highlights markdown loss risk and unsupported content, adding behavioral insight beyond a simple export. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the context suggests it.

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 a single, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and key output components.

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?

The description lacks details on output format and parameter usage, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it provides a minimally adequate overview. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the burden, which is partially met.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the three parameters (workspaceId, docId, includeFrontmatter). The agent must infer the meaning from the tool name and context, which is insufficient.

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 specific verb 'Export' and distinguishes between two components: markdown and fidelity report. It clearly separates this tool from export_doc_markdown and analyze_doc_fidelity, which handle only one aspect.

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 the tool's combined output but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like export_doc_markdown or analyze_doc_fidelity. No when-not scenarios are discussed.

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