export_cache

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the on-disk side effect and the file-layout semantics (one file/sheet per table), but says nothing about overwriting existing files, permissions on the destination, or failure behavior when the directory is unwritable.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the format choice is stated first and the destination behavior last. The trailing 'Returns the absolute paths written' is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, keeping it just short of 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?

With full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema for return values, the description only needs to carry the write semantics, which it does. The remaining gap is operational behavior (overwrite policy, destination write errors) for a tool that writes files to disk.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the csv/xlsx table layout that the format enum already documents and says nothing about destination or the cache_name handle, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

A specific verb and resource (write a cached response to disk) plus the two output shapes, so an agent can tell this apart from read-side siblings like query_cache and list_cached_responses. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the contrast explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the cache_name parameter's schema note points at 'a request tool or list_cached_responses' as the source of the handle, but the description itself gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not guidance versus query_cache.

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