label_export

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 states the primary action and output, but does not mention whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the file is created if absent, or what the tool returns after export. For a write-oriented tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and a terse parameter explanation immediately after. No words are wasted.

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 one-parameter tool, the description gives the essential information: what is exported, the output format, the required path, and that the path must be absolute. However, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should also clarify overwrite/create behavior and the return value, both of which are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: the Args section explains that 'path' is an absolute path for the output labels file, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Path' title. For the single required parameter, this is sufficient and helpful.

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 a specific action ('Export all labels') and a specific output ('a text file'), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling export tools like label_export_chapters or label_export_audio_segments, though the 'all labels' and 'text file' wording provides some implicit 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as label_export_chapters, label_export_audio_segments, or project_export_labels. The intended use is only implied by the name and one-line description, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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