scf_export_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states this is a read operation ('read — viewer role'), indicates it returns rendered text (markdown/HTML), and notes the absence of PDF support. This covers key behavioral aspects, though it could add more detail about response format or any rate limits.

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 purpose, then the read note and PDF limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no waste. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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 straightforward export tool, the definition is complete: it explains what it returns (rendered md/html text), its read-only nature, and what it does not offer (PDF). The schema covers parameters, and the description fills the gap of the missing output schema by stating the return content type.

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?

The schema already provides complete parameter descriptions (100% coverage), including format enum and UUID patterns. The description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb (export), the resource (document), and the specific output formats (markdown or HTML text). It also notes the read-only nature and explicitly excludes PDF, distinguishing from potential alternatives and setting expectations precisely.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for md/html text export) and explicitly directs PDF needs to the web UI. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like scf_get_document or scf_preview_document, so it lacks a full when-not/alternatives breakdown.

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