export_component_inventory

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. It only states that the tool exports an inventory, but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what the output structure will be, whether it covers all pages/scopes, or whether any side effects (e.g., file creation) occur. The phrase 'complete inventory' is vague and does not disclose the behavior beyond the obvious export action. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate results.

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, short sentence that is direct and without fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple export tool. However, it may be slightly under-specified – it leaves a lot to inference – but as a matter of conciseness and structure, it is efficient and front-loaded with the key action.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect: the return format (beyond the parameter), the scope (all pages? whole document?), and any limitations. The description says 'complete inventory of all components' but does not specify scope or how 'usage counts' are derived. It also does not differentiate from siblings. For a simple tool, this is a minimal but inadequate level of context; an agent would likely need to infer too much.

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 single parameter 'format' has a clear schema with an enum and a description ('Format (default: json)') that provides full coverage (100%). Since the schema already documents it, the description is not required to elaborate. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic burden; the description adds no extra information about the parameter.

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 action ('Export') and the resource ('a complete inventory of all components') with an additional qualifier ('with usage counts') that adds specificity. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings like list_components or component_audit, which might also return component inventories. It is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or competing tools. Context signals show many sibling tools that could overlap (e.g., list_components, component_audit, export_assets), but the description gives no hint of the tool's unique purpose or when it is the better choice. An agent is left to guess based on the name alone.

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