export_queries

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 does mention that existing .pq files are replaced, which is a destructive action, and describes the output files. However, it does not disclose any other side effects, such as whether the folder is created if missing, what happens to the manifest if it already exists, or any permission requirements.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. It conveys the essential information without unnecessary verbosity, though a slightly more structured format could improve clarity.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions for parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain the 'source' parameter, the format of the .pq files, the manifest contents, error handling, or edge cases like existing manifests or missing folders. An agent would likely struggle to call this tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'folder' parameter by referencing it in the context of writing files, but it leaves 'source' completely unexplained. It is unclear what 'source' refers to, and the description does not clarify the relationship between source and the queries being exported.

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 action: writing every query to a folder as .pq files plus a manifest, with the explicit purpose of being ready for git commit and PR diff. It implies a specific export format that distinguishes it from import_queries and diff_queries, though it doesn't name alternatives. It is specific about the resource (queries) and the output format.

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 gives context for when to use this tool (preparing queries for version control and PR review), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with sibling tools like copy_queries or import_queries. The use case is implied rather than stated as a directive.

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