fmod_project_exportGUIDs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It only states it exports and returns a boolean, omitting details like file location, overwrite behavior, or error conditions. For a mutation-like operation, more transparency is needed.

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 concise sentence followed by a tag, front-loading the core action and return type. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about where the file is exported, any required project state, and error handling. A score of 3 reflects the basic but incomplete coverage.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning but confirms the tool takes no arguments. This is adequate, though no extra semantics are provided 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 uses a specific verb 'Exports' and identifies the resource 'project guids.txt', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'fmod_project_build' or 'fmod_project_save'. It also specifies the return value type, aiding understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there is no direct sibling for exporting GUIDs, the description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to guess.

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