export_container_to_file

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: streaming to disk, no size cap, file handling (user writing, ~ expansion, overwrite flag), and return dict structure. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent, and the description adds valuable context for agent decision-making.

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 concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and presents information in a logical order (purpose, behavior, parameters, return).

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 tool's complexity (exporting container filesystem), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it handles files, parameters, return value. No output schema is provided, but the return format is described. It is complete for an informed agent.

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 documenting all three parameters: id_or_name, dest_path (with path expansion and overwrite behavior), and overwrite (with default false). This provides the agent with complete usage guidance.

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 action: 'Export a container's filesystem as a tar archive written to a file on the server host.' It uses specific verb and resource ('export container to file'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'export_container' (likely stdout) and 'get_container_archive_to_file' by emphasizing server-side file storage.

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 context for when to use: 'Streams straight to disk (no in-band byte cap), so it handles large containers.' This implies suitability for large exports. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, which would elevate the score further.

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