export_workspace

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, which matches a copy operation. The description goes beyond them by disclosing rejection conditions (active traces, symlinks, concurrent ops), the SHA-256 manifest artifact, and inclusion/exclusion rules (excludes session lock, includes retained app data). It stops short of stating failure behavior if the destination already exists or whether partial copies are cleaned up.

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?

Three compact sentences, zero filler. Purpose first, then constraints, then inclusion/exclusion detail — well front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what is needed to invoke it: what is copied, what is excluded, and what causes rejection. The remaining gap is the return value (where the manifest is written) and destination-exists behavior, which is minor given no output schema.

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% and the single 'destination' parameter carries no description, so the definition must compensate. 'To a new directory' usefully implies the path must not already exist, but nothing is said about absolute vs relative paths, permissions, or whether the parent must exist.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Copy the quiescent workspace to a new directory with SHA-256 manifest for migration.' An agent understands exactly the operation and that it is a migration/export, distinct from the sibling import_workspace. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the counter-operation, keeping it from a 5.

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?

'quiescent workspace' plus 'Rejects active traces, symlinks and concurrent operations' effectively states preconditions for successful use. However it never names the alternative (import_workspace) or says what to do when the workspace is not quiescent, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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