edubase_post_question_export

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

Annotations show destructiveHint=false, so the tool is non-destructive. The description adds transparency about caching: a previous valid link is returned instead of generating a new one. This behavioral insight is useful beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail other aspects like authentication requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main action ('Generate download link') and then providing the caching detail. No redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present). The description covers the core behavior and caching. It could mention what happens if the question does not exist or what the output contains, but the output schema likely covers that. Missing explicit error conditions, but overall adequate.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the 'id' parameter described as 'external unique question identifier'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: generating a download link for exporting a question in JSON format. It also notes caching behavior (returns existing link if valid). This distinguishes it from siblings like edubase_get_question which retrieves data directly, and edubase_post_question which creates new questions.

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 implies when to use (exporting JSON) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. For example, if the agent wants the raw question data, edubase_get_question might be more appropriate. The caching detail provides some guidance but not enough for optimal tool selection.

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