mimir_vault_export

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, and the description adds that files are human-readable, git-trackable, and Obsidian-compatible, which complements the annotation. However, it does not clarify whether exporting overwrites existing files, which would be useful for a 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output format. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter interface and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output format, use cases, and parameter details adequately. No gaps remain.

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 sole parameter vault_dir is fully described in the schema with default and path handling. The tool description adds context about writing to the vault directory, reinforcing its purpose beyond the schema.

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 tool exports non-archived entities to .md files with YAML frontmatter, specifying a concrete verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like mimir_vault_import.

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 explicitly lists use cases ('backup, transfer between workspaces, or offline review'), providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough.

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