export_for_platform

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks any behavioral disclosures. 'Export' implies a write operation that could be time-consuming or destructive, but the description gives no details about side effects, file creation, overwrite behavior, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 that is concise and free of fluff. It directly states the tool's purpose. While it could be slightly more informative without adding length, it achieves brevity effectively.

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?

For an export action with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain output location, success indicators, error conditions, or preconditions (e.g., having export presets). The tool's context is far from complete given its complexity.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (platform enum, debug boolean). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. Baseline score of 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 'Export the project for a specific platform' uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('project') with a clear scope ('for a specific platform'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'export_project' which likely exports for all platforms or defaults, and from validation tools like 'validate_export_for_platform'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'export_project' or 'validate_export_for_platform'. There is no mention of prerequisites, best practices, or context for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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