roboflow_export_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It notes that it returns a signed URL when ready and does not stream bytes, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is asynchronous. Some behavioral insight is provided, but 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word serves a purpose. It is concise without omitting critical information.

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?

The description explains the return value (signed download URL) and the next step (use roboflow_download_export). However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., version must be trained) and error conditions, leaving some gaps for a complex tool. Still, it provides enough context for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'version' generically without explaining the other parameters (project, export_format, workspace, dry_run). No parameter meaning or usage is added beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states the purpose: request an export for a trained/generated version and return a signed download URL. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool roboflow_download_export by noting that it does not stream bytes, making the tool's function very specific.

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 usage context: use this tool to get a download URL for a version, and pair it with roboflow_download_export to obtain the actual zip file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the complementary tool guidance is strong.

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