export_dataset

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose key behaviors like overwrite policy, file naming conventions, or path validation. It only says 'write' and 'return the path', with no detail on effects (e.g., does it overwrite an existing file? create unique names?). This minimal disclosure is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and output, earning its place without verbosity.

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 (one required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fails to explain the relationship between 'rows' and 'columns', error scenarios, or how the output path is constructed. It is too terse to fully support correct agent usage.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'path' and 'format' described). The description merely echoes the allowed formats from the schema without adding meaning for 'rows', 'columns', or default behavior of 'path'. It does not compensate for missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent unsure about 'columns' or row structure.

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 ('write extracted rows'), the output resource ('consolidated file'), and supported formats (csv, xlsx, json). It ends with returning the path, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like extraction or search tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., rows must be from prior extraction), or scenarios where it should not be used. The description omits any usage context, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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