security_gdpr_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. It states the action ('Export') but lacks details on behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what data formats are exported, whether it's destructive to source data, rate limits, authentication needs, or response handling. For a GDPR-related tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without 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?

Given the complexity of GDPR compliance and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what data is exported, in what format, or how to handle the output. For a tool with potential legal implications, more context on behavior and results is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'user_id' documented as 'User ID to export data for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Export') and resource ('user data') with a specific purpose ('GDPR compliance'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'security_gdpr_delete' by focusing on data export rather than deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools like 'security_encrypt' or 'security_scan'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), timing (e.g., for compliance requests), or comparisons to siblings like 'security_gdpr_delete' for data removal versus export. Usage is implied by the GDPR context but not explicitly defined.

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