sidecar_export_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful traits: 'Zero API calls' (no external network dependency), 'single JSON' (return format), and 'restore checklist' (additional output component). While it does not explicitly state whether any state is modified, the verb 'export' plus the local, read-style content list strongly implies a non-destructive operation.

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 zero fluff. The main action and full resource list are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a key behavioral trait ('Zero API calls'). Every word earns its place, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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 complex tool exporting many state categories, the description covers the essential content list, the return type (single JSON), the purpose (machine migration), and an extra deliverable (restore checklist). It does not detail the JSON shape or edge cases, but the optional response_format parameter in the schema partially addresses the human-vs-raw output, and the description is strong enough for an agent to understand the tool's role within a large sibling set.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('pretty' and 'response_format'), including defaults and enum values. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 a specific action (export) and resource (ALL local sidecar state), enumerating exactly what is included: scenes, device presets, tags, smart rules, playback states, bookmarks, checkpoints, journal. This level of specificity distinguishes it from other export tools like export_playlist_json or export_library_json without needing to name them, and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

'For machine migration' gives a clear, concrete use case, and 'Zero API calls' signals it is a local, safe operation. The description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scope ('ALL local sidecar state') and context are sufficient to guide an agent toward this tool for full-state migration or backup scenarios.

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