container_export

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

Annotations only indicate non-destructive, non-read-only, but the description adds critical behavioral details: flat filesystem snapshot with no image metadata, streaming behavior with dest_path, ~ expansion, overwrite refusal unless overwrite=True, in-band byte cap limited by MCP encoding, and return format. This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence establishing purpose, followed by detailed but organized explanations. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without losing information.

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 four parameters, an output schema (not shown but signaled), and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary context: parameter details, return type, behavioral edge cases, and alternatives. It is fully adequate for tool selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: dest_path for host file vs in-band, overwrite behavior, max_bytes default and limitation, and id_or_name. It adds default values and behavior beyond the schema's type/required constraints.

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 explicitly states 'Export a container's filesystem as a tar archive', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools image_save and container_archive_get by explaining what the archive lacks (image metadata/layers) and what alternatives cover.

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 explicit guidance on when to use dest_path (large containers, no byte cap) versus in-band mode (when no writable host path). It also names specific sibling alternatives: image_save for restorable archives and container_archive_get for single files/directories, making the decision clear.

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