export-project-template

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

The description states "Nothing is modified," which aligns perfectly with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, reinforcing the safe, non-mutating nature. It also discloses that the tool can return either CSV content or a URL, adding useful behavioral context beyond the basic safety profile.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by usage guidance and a distinction from a sibling tool. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, key use cases, and alternative tools, while annotations address safety and idempotence. The description is complete for a focused export tool given the supporting structured metadata.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds context for the format parameter indirectly ("CSV content" and "shareable URL") but does not elaborate on projectId or useRelativeDates, which are already well-described in the schema. Thus the description adds marginal value beyond structured fields.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: "Export an existing project as a Todoist template," which clearly states the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from find-tasks by noting that it returns raw CSV rather than structured tasks, making the purpose unmistakable.

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: "Use it to duplicate a project, share its structure, or hand the CSV to import-project-template." It also names a clear alternative: "To read a project rather than export it, use find-tasks instead," providing both an inclusion and exclusion criterion.

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