export-project-template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds explicit user-facing safety context with 'Nothing is modified' and clarifies that the 'url' format avoids returning the whole file. It does not go into edge cases like missing projects or URL expiry, but it is consistent with the annotations.

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 four tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use cases, alternative tool guidance, and safety guarantee. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler or repetition of schema details.

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 is a read-only export with a robust schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the key operational scenarios, format choice, sibling distinction, and non-mutation guarantee. It is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to select it.

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 100%, so the parameter metadata already explains projectId, format, and useRelativeDates. The description adds cross-tool context for the 'file' format by mentioning handoff to import-project-template, but it does not add significant parameter-level meaning 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export an existing project as a Todoist template' with the two return modes (CSV or shareable URL). It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming find-tasks and import-project-template in context.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'duplicate a project, share its structure, or hand the CSV to import-project-template.' It also gives a clear alternative: 'To read a project rather than export it, use find-tasks instead,' which directly addresses sibling-tool selection.

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