documents_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Export a document' reveals no side effects, return format, authentication needs, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is effectively a blank slate with zero behavioral transparency.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified. It lacks the content needed to be useful, similar to the 'Under-specification, not conciseness' example. The sentence does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description, this tool is severely underspecified. An agent cannot determine when to use it, what output to expect, or how it behaves. For a tool with only two parameters (both optional) and a generic verb, the description is completely inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema covers both parameters ('id' and 'shareId') with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per policy, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and there is no additional parameter clarification to raise it.

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 'Export a document.' merely restates the tool name in sentence form. It provides no details about what export entails (e.g., format, destination, or scope), and it does not distinguish from sibling export tools like collections_export. This is essentially a tautology, similar to the 'Process' example.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, common use cases, or contrasts with related operations such as documents_download or collections_export. An agent is left without any context for choosing this tool.

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