spoolman_export_spools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is minimal and does not state whether the export returns data directly, creates a file, or has any side effects. It also doesn't mention safety aspects (e.g., read-only nature), auth requirements, or behavior for large datasets. However, 'export' implies a read operation and the description is not misleading, adding some value but lacking richer context.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Export all spools from Spoolman as JSON or CSV.' It contains no redundant words and directly conveys the tool's purpose and output format options. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple: one optional parameter with a schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description combined with the schema is fairly complete for this complexity level. It covers the action, resource, and format. It could mention what the response looks like or any edge cases, but for a basic export tool, the current level is adequate and nearly complete.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of the single 'format' parameter, including an enum ('json', 'csv') and a default value. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states ('Export format: 'json' (default) or 'csv''). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not go 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's action: 'Export all spools from Spoolman as JSON or CSV.' It uses the specific verb 'export', identifies the resource ('all spools'), and specifies the output formats. This distinguishes it from sibling export tools like spoolman_export_vendors and spoolman_export_filaments, as well as from list/get spool operations.

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 when to use this tool: to export all spools in JSON or CSV format. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_spools for in-app viewing or get_spool for a single spool, but the purpose is unambiguous given the name and description. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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