export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a side effect ('Output dir is created if missing') and the shape of the output (vault with README/INDEX/LOG/pages), but omits critical traits such as whether existing files are overwritten, permissions required, or whether the operation is read-only on the substrate.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, with the side-effect note appended where it belongs. 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?

For a simple export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and one side effect, but leaves the 'initiative' parameter's meaning and overwrite/idempotency behavior unexplained. 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 coverage is only 50% and the one documented parameter (output_dir) is described minimally as 'Output directory.' The description does add meaning about output_dir behavior (created if missing), but the 'initiative' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the surface unexplained.

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 specific verb (snapshot/export) and a specific resource (the substrate as an Obsidian-friendly markdown vault), even naming the artifacts produced (README + INDEX + LOG + pages). The action is clear, but it never references the obvious sibling 'import' or any other tool to sharpen the boundary.

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 what is produced but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as 'import' or other export-adjacent tools. An agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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