Export With Fidelity Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the fidelity report content (highlights markdown loss risk and unsupported content), but does not specify output format, side effects, or whether the export is a file download or inline response.

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, well-structured sentence of 21 words. It front-loads the core purpose and contains no extraneous information.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description omits important context: the structure of the fidelity report, how the output is delivered, and the effect of the 'includeFrontmatter' parameter. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 67% (docId and workspaceId have descriptions, includeFrontmatter does not). The tool description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. Notably, 'includeFrontmatter' is left entirely unexplained, which the description should compensate for.

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 document markdown together with a structured fidelity report highlighting markdown loss risk and unsupported AFFiNE-native content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'export_doc_markdown' (plain markdown export) and 'analyze_doc_fidelity' (fidelity analysis only).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'export_doc_markdown' or 'analyze_doc_fidelity'. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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