export_shows_opml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well by revealing a non-obvious limitation: the Spotify API does not expose RSS feed URLs, so OPML entries link to Spotify show pages and may not import cleanly. It does not fully describe the return envelope or exact behavior beyond format, but the key caveat is transparently disclosed.

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 with no filler: the first states the purpose and format, and the second provides a critical limitation. The essential caveat is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 simple export tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the main real-world caveat. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response form (raw XML vs prose), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both parameters (fetch_all and response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (export), a specific resource (saved shows), and a specific output format (OPML XML), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like export_library_json or export_playlist_markdown by the format and the saved-shows scope.

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 phrase 'the interchange format podcast apps speak' implies a podcast-migration/import use case, and the caveat about Spotify page links helps manage expectations. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_saved_shows or export_library_json, nor does it state when not to use it.

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