ads_export

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

readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declare the safety profile, so the description earns credit for detailing what each format emits. However, it is silent on out_path and overwrite, so an agent cannot tell whether the tool writes a file to disk or only returns text, which is material for a tool carrying an overwrite flag.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and the format semantics; the semicolon-clause for types/prefix is compact and each element earns its place. Slightly terse on the parameters it omits, but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a tool with out_path and overwrite parameters, the description never clarifies default output or on-disk side effects, leaving a meaningful behavioral gap for a 6-parameter 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains fmt (with all four values), types, and prefix reasonably well, but leaves out_path, namespace, and overwrite completely undefined in both description and schema, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (generate code) and resource (runtime type system), and enumerates the output formats with their contents, which is more informative than the bare name. It stops short of positioning itself against nearby siblings like ads_types or ads_dump, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 format breakdown implies when each mode is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as ads_types for raw type inspection. Usage is only inferable from the fmt enumeration.

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