export_agent_context

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 discloses determinism and grounding in dependency versions, and 'export' implies file creation. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether it overwrites existing files, requires write permissions, or makes network calls. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that likely writes to disk.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the supported file types. Every element earns its place without redundancy or fluff. It is concise and immediately informative.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or does beyond generation. It does not specify whether the output is written to files, returned as a string, or something else. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., whether a project directory is required) and potential failure modes. For a tool with this complexity, the description leaves notable gaps.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond that—it mentions grounding in dependency versions, which relates to projectDir, but does not elaborate on parameter interplay or defaults (e.g., default format). Since the schema handles parameter documentation, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: it deterministically generates and exports agent-native documentation context files, explicitly listing the supported formats (AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, skill.md, llms.txt, docs-map.md). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings that fetch or search documentation, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to generate agent context files grounded in dependency versions) but does not explicitly state alternatives or conditions when not to use it. It doesn't mention that this is for creating files rather than retrieving docs, which is a clear contrast to siblings like get_documentation_map or search_docs, but that contrast is left implicit.

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