export_solution

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (it does change the environment read-side but the description clarifies no read-side changes), openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context: it exports to a new timestamped folder, defaults to unpacking, takes ~1 minute, and returns zip and folder paths. It correctly clarifies that nothing changes in the environment (read-side), which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations.

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 concise (about 100 words) and front-loads the core action and side effect. Every sentence adds value: the default unpack behavior, the managed condition, and the expected duration are all useful and non-redundant. No waste.

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 tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the main steps, key condition for managed, and expected duration. It doesn't explain what the return paths are for or how to use them, but given the simplicity and the openWorldHint, this is adequate complete enough for most agents.

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 0%, but the description provides meaning for key parameters: managed=true exports the managed package, unpack default is true and it unpacks. It also mentions the solution parameter implicitly, but the environment parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, giving enough context for the main parameters.

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 specifies the action ('Export a solution'), the resource ('from an allowlisted environment'), and the main side effect (creates a timestamped folder and optionally unpacks it). It also mentions the purpose ('so its tables, relationships and canvas apps can be read offline'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like import_solution or pack_solution.

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 explains when to use it (to read solution components offline) and gives a key condition for managed=true (only possible from the environment where the solution is unmanaged). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or alternatives, though siblings like unpack_solution and pack_solution are implied. The guidance is clear for most use cases.

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