Export With Fidelity Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it exports markdown and a fidelity report, but does not mention return format, side effects, or whether it modifies the document. It gives moderate transparency but lacks details on output structure.

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 one concise sentence (23 words) that front-loads the main action. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but does not explain return values, parameter details, or usage context. An agent would need more information to use it safely.

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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It does not explain any parameters (workspaceId, docId, includeFrontmatter). The user may not know what docId is or what includeFrontmatter does. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 markdown with a fidelity report, specifying the report covers markdown loss risk and unsupported content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'export_doc_markdown' and 'analyze_doc_fidelity'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it lacks guidance such as 'Use this when you need both markdown and a fidelity report' or 'If you only need markdown, use export_doc_markdown'.

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