remarkable_export

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing that the output is written to a temporary directory, returned as a MCP ResourceLink (never base64 or arbitrary path), expires after 15 minutes, and may be evicted if more than eight exports are retained. It also explains PDF modes, Markdown behavior, OCR opt-in, and partial export handling. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=false is consistent with 'without modifying the tablet').

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 uses a clear XML-like structure (usecase, instructions, parameters, examples) that is easy to parse. It front-loads the essential purpose and then goes into necessary detail. While verbose, every section adds value; minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing information.

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 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers input requirements, behavioral details (resource lifespan, eviction policy), error handling (render failure placeholders), and usage examples. It leaves no significant gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing each parameter in <parameters> with brief explanations (e.g., 'document: Document name or path (use remarkable_browse to find documents)') and provides three examples showing various combinations. However, it could add more detail about parameter interactions or constraints beyond what the schema enums already convey.

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 <usecase> tag states 'Export one reMarkable document as a reusable PDF or Markdown file', providing a specific verb (Export), resource (one reMarkable document), and output format. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remarkable_read (read content), remarkable_browse (list documents), and remarkable_upload (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 <instructions> explain that the tool exports a single document without modifying the tablet or its library, and the <parameters> section notes that the 'document' parameter can be found using remarkable_browse. While no explicit alternative comparisons are given, the context of sibling names and the detailed examples implicitly guide when to use this tool versus others.

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