export_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (export), the destination (file), supported formats, and that it returns the written path. However, it does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, requires an open document, or any other side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word serves a purpose. The format list and return note are concise and actionable.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, formats, and return value. It does not address error conditions or prerequisites like an open document, but these are relatively minor given the simplicity and available sibling context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists valid values for 'fmt' (png, jpg, gif, etc.) and clarifies that 'path' is the output file path, implied by 'writes a file' and 'returns the written path'. This provides meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('current page'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_document. Listing supported formats and return value adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 states what it does but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like save_document or specify when to choose this tool. Usage context is implied by the verb 'export' and format list, but there is no direct guidance or exclusion.

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