container_export

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: streaming to disk with no byte cap, write happens as server user, ~ expansion, overwrite refusal unless overwrite=True, in-band base64 encoding limit, and ValueError on exceeding max_bytes. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this context is essential and well supplied.

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?

Although lengthy, the description is front-loaded with a clear purpose, then contrasts with siblings, then details behavior, and ends with a compact args block. Every sentence adds distinct operational value with no filler.

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?

The description covers both output modes, return values (bytes or dict), error behavior, file overwrite semantics, and byte limits. With output schema present and this level of detail, there are no meaningful gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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%, but the description includes an args section that explains every parameter, its defaults, and mode-specific relevance (e.g., max_bytes only applies in-band). This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Export a container's filesystem as a tar archive' and clearly distinguishes the tool from image_save (for loadable archives) and container_archive_get (for single file/directory). This gives a specific verb, resource, and output format while disambiguating siblings.

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 explicitly names alternatives for different archive needs and explains when to use dest_path versus in-band mode based on host path availability and max_bytes. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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