results_export_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return is a confirmation with file path but omits important details like error handling if the export node doesn't exist, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state). Basic information is present but insufficient for a comprehensive understanding.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main action, a brief list of arguments with defaults, and a one-line return description. No redundant words; every sentence serves a purpose. It follows the principle of front-loading the key action.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description explains the tool's operation adequately for a simple export function. It covers parameter defaults and overrides. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this export over alternatives (e.g., results_export_image) and does not describe potential side effects, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains the meaning of node_name (export node name, default run all exports), file_path (output file path, overrides node setting), and model_name (model name, default current model). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 'Export data from an export node,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like results_export_image (image export) and results_evaluate (evaluation). No ambiguity.

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 default behaviors for parameters (e.g., node_name defaults to run all exports) and explains file_path overrides. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., results_export_image) or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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