scope_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: a signed <csv>.provenance.json side file is written, read-only sources are handled via a copy, and CSV content/layout comes from the Scope project settings. However it never says what happens when the target already exists, which is the key write-behaviour question for a non-destructive but writing tool.

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 core action and the command line are front-loaded and the provenance/error notes are informative rather than filler. It is dense with parentheticals and log-file digressions, which slightly slows scanning, but no sentence is wasted.

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 values need not be described, and the description covers the tool invocation, output location, side effects and error retrieval. The one real hole is overwrite behaviour on an existing target, which matters for a tool that writes files.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains svd and the target default resolution (<recordings>/Scope Recordings/<name>.csv, [scope] export_dir), but never mentions the overwrite parameter at all, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both places.

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 (export), a specific resource (saved TwinCAT Scope recording .svdx/.svd) and the concrete output format (CSV via TC3ScopeExportTool.exe). That clearly separates it from scope_record, scope_list and rec_export in the sibling list.

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?

It explains operational context – a sealed read-only source is exported from a byte-identical writable copy, and errors are found via scope_view_log – but it never says when to pick this over rec_export, rec_read or ads_export. Usage is implied by the resource type rather than stated.

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