Export ICC Plus fragment

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

Annotations already convey the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds only that the tool returns reusable JSON, which is modest but consistent. No additional behavioral details such as output shape, error conditions, or asset handling are disclosed, though annotations lower this burden.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The core action and result are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the tool's purpose.

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?

With no output schema, low parameter coverage, and a wide enum of possible type values, the description should explain more about what 'reusable JSON' contains and how to construct the reference. It leaves important operational details such as how to identify the target entity and what the exported JSON looks like entirely unstated.

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 only 25% because only include_embedded_assets has a description. The description lists some entity kinds but does not explain the meaning of 'reference', the format of project_id, or how type values map to behavior. The schema's enum already lists valid types, so the description adds little semantic value for the parameters.

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 a specific action ('Return') and resource ('a row, choice, addon, score, requirement, or feature entity as reusable JSON'), which makes the tool's basic function obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like iccplus_query or iccplus_read_project, and the term 'feature' is not actually present in the type enum.

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 'as reusable JSON' implies this is intended for serializing/exporting a fragment for later reuse, giving some contextual signal about when to use it. But it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives like query, read_project, or import_fragment, and provides no exclusion criteria.

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