Api frameworks export yaml retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the result is a YAML export suitable for library import — but says nothing about size limits, permissions, or how the file is delivered.

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?

A single twelve-word sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the verb and resource.

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 a one-parameter export endpoint with no output schema, the agent still lacks the id format and any sense of what the returned YAML contains or how large it may be. Adequate but with clear 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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate and only weakly does: 'a framework' implies the id identifies a framework, but the description never states that or gives the id format (slug vs UUID).

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?

Names a specific verb (export) and resource (framework) plus the output format (library-compatible YAML), which partially distinguishes it from sibling framework endpoints such as excel_template_retrieve or report_retrieve. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of 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?

The phrase 'library-compatible' implies the intended use case (producing a file for reloading into the library system), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative for agents who want a report or Excel instead.

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