export_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a 'logical interchange document', but it does not explain behavioral aspects like how the 'delivery' parameter affects output, side effects (though none due to annotations), or whether it requires an explicit project_ref. It adds minimal context beyond annotations, hence a mid-range score.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's primary action and output format.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover safety and return format, reducing the burden on the description. However, the description is too terse to provide complete guidance: it lacks usage context, alternative differentiation, and parameter behavior. For a simple export tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in when and how to use it.

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 description does not add any meaning to the parameters beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 67%, leaving the 'delivery' parameter (enum: artifact/inline) undocumented in both schema and description. The description fails to clarify what 'delivery' means or how it influences the export, and it does not compensate for the lack of parameter detail.

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 verb ('Export'), the resource ('the selected project'), and the output format ('version 1 logical interchange document'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project or get_changes, which retrieve different data shapes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open project), exclusions, or why one might choose export_project over get_project. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it.

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