Export bookmarks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns the file content' and clarifies the HTML format is 'importable browser HTML (Netscape format),' which is helpful. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions needed, or limitations like browser detection time, so transparency is partial.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and formats, then adds the return behavior and a user-friendly note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-export tool with two parameters, the description covers the purpose, output formats, and return value. It does not explain hardware/browser detection nuances or error handling, but given the absence of an output schema and annotations, it is reasonably complete. It does not mention using sibling tools like list_sources to obtain source IDs, but the schema fills that gap.

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 description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that the output formats include 'markdown, csv, json, or importable browser HTML,' which clarifies the HTML option as Netscape format. The source parameter is already well-described in the schema, and the description reinforces its meaning without redundancy. Given the schema covers 50% but the description compensates for the format enum, this is above baseline.

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 specifies the verb ('Export') and the resource ('bookmarks from detected browsers'), lists the output formats, and distinguishes this tool from sibling list/search tools by focusing on file export. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is for exporting bookmarks to a file, with a note to 'save it wherever you like.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selecting this tool over list/search variants.

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