bowire.export.http

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses the security behavior (secrets never written; {{secret.x}} becomes placeholder names to fill into http-client.private.env.json) and the return shape ({ http, envJson, report }). The remaining gap is whether it writes files to disk or only returns content — 'Write ... as a file' versus 'Returns { http, envJson, report }' leaves that ambiguity unresolved.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output artifacts, then inputs, then secrets handling, then return value — a sensible order with little redundancy. The trailing issue reference '(#673)' is pure noise and the IDE/artifact enumeration is slightly dense, keeping it off a 5.

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 2-parameter export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers accepted input forms, the side-effect/security model, and the return fields — enough to call it correctly. The one unresolved point is whether output is written to disk or returned in-memory, which matters for an 'export' verb.

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 100%, so `path` is already fully documented and the schema's description is nearly verbatim what the tool description repeats. The `dialect` parameter is never named in the description, though the IDE list implicitly maps to jetbrains (Rider/IntelliJ) and vscode (VS Code REST Client). Baseline 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?

States a concrete verb and transformation ('Write Bowire collections as a .http file') plus the concrete artifacts produced ('.http file' and 'http-client.env.json'), and enumerates the consuming IDEs (Rider, IntelliJ, Visual Studio 2022, VS Code REST Client). No sibling tool does HTTP-file export, so an agent can distinguish it from import/har.import/discover without opening any schema.

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?

It says what inputs it accepts ('a .bww workspace file, a workspace's collections.json or an array of collections'), which implies when it is applicable, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no naming of an alternative (e.g., when to use bowire.import vs this export). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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