tandem_export_context

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

Although annotations are absent, the description reveals important behavioral traits: the transfer_id is a private capability rather than a public link, the operation grants no permissions, and no tasks/history are shared. This is precisely the kind of context an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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: the core purpose comes first, followed by usage constraints, privacy implications, and security caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Covers purpose, when to use, security, return value semantics, and the follow-up action on the recipient side. The main gap is the lack of explicit parameter documentation; otherwise, an agent would have enough context to invoke the tool safely and understand the result.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the two required parameters. 'context_id' and 'target_project_root' are somewhat inferable from their names and the surrounding text, but the description never states how to obtain context_id, what format target_project_root should take, or how they map to the described behavior.

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 opens with a specific action ('Explicitly offer') and a clear resource ('this project's selected rules and referenced evidence') directed at 'one recipient.' It also distinguishes itself from tandem_import_context and siblings by describing what it does and does not do.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use only when the user intends cross-project sharing.' It also clarifies that no tasks/history are shared and that the recipient must separately call tandem_import_context, which prevents misuse and clearly scopes the tool.

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