export_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'export' without explaining output format options (beyond 'supported format'), side effects, permissions, or whether the tool returns data or writes to a file. There is no mention of destructive actions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information and is appropriately concise for a simple export tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin for a tool with no annotations. It omits usage context, format enumeration, and any behavioral warnings. The tool is simple, but the description should still clarify supported formats or provide pointers to sibling tools for context.

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 allude to 'list of works' (mapping to 'works') and 'supported format' (mapping to 'format'), but gives no details on the structure of the 'works' objects, allowed format values, defaults (e.g., 'jsonl'), or constraints. This is minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Export a list of works to a supported format' clearly states the action (export), the resource (list of works), and the target (supported format). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_literature or get_work, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them by name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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