export_web

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so extensively: it explains the pruning logic, what is always kept, what gets dropped, what gets written, default zip behavior, existing outDir replacement rules, and safety constraints about not writing inside the project. It also discloses return values such as file/byte counts, dropped paths, screen size, and itch.io limit warnings.

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 front-loaded with the core export purpose and uses no obvious filler. However, the second sentence is extremely long and dense with parenthetical rules, making it harder to parse than necessary for an agent. The content earns its place, but the structure could be clearer.

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 export tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what gets returned, what warnings are produced, and the exact filesystem constraints. It gives the agent enough information to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate its side effects and outputs.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters well. The description reinforces defaults and the outDir replacement constraint, but much of the parameter meaning is already present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'Export a pruned HTML5 web deployment.' It immediately scopes the operation as a pruned deployment for itch.io or any static host, making it easy to distinguish from database-editing or validation siblings. An agent can tell what the tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('for itch.io or any static host') and a follow-up recommendation ('Follow up with a playtest of the exported build'). It also documents the prune=false escape hatch for runtime-generated asset names. It does not explicitly compare against a sibling alternative, but there is no close sibling export tool, so the guidance is strong.

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