export_cucumber_features

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It merely states the export action without disclosing whether it is read-only, the output format, or any side effects. This leaves the agent uncertain about the operation's safety.

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 consists of two short sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers the main usage options.

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 the simple parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., feature file content or URIs) and whether it is synchronous. It omits these essential details, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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?

The parameter test_keys is fully described in the schema with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Export' and the resource 'Cucumber feature files from Xray', distinguishing between exporting all features or specific test keys. This differentiates it from sibling tools like import_feature_file.

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 explains that the tool can export all features or specific test keys, providing clear usage context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as noting that import_feature_file is the appropriate tool for importing.

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