export_xlsx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose formatting behaviors (bold headers, freeze panes, etc.), which gives some transparency about what the tool does. However, it does not mention whether the file is overwritten, required permissions, error handling, or any side effects. The cryptic 'ТЗ 3.3' adds no behavioral insight. This is partial disclosure, not comprehensive.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. It includes useful formatting details. However, the reference to 'ТЗ 3.3' is cryptic and may confuse rather than inform, slightly reducing effectiveness. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, output schema exists but not described), the description is inadequate. It does not explain how to construct the export, what inputs are required, or what the output looks like (though output schema exists, it's not referenced). An agent would need additional knowledge to call this correctly, making it incomplete.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the four parameters. Parameter names like 'sql', 'columns', 'filename', and 'table_name' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description offers no hints about their format, relationships, or required combinations. For a tool with 4 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 'Export data to XLSX file with formatting' and lists specific formatting behaviors (bold headers, freeze panes, auto-width, auto-filter, NULL → gray). This gives a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'export_data' tool, which could be a generic export. The formatting details add clarity, but the lack of explicit differentiation prevents a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_data' or 'sql_query'. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The reader must infer that it is for formatted XLSX export, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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