export_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool converts document body and writes to a file, with a default path. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no document modification) or whether existing files are overwritten. These are minor gaps for a non-destructive export.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, then details of content conversion, followed by Args, then returns. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Concise and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the purpose, parameter, and return format. It lacks information on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., document open), and whether the output file is overwritten. Given the tool's simplicity, these are minor omissions.

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%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: describes output_path with destination path, default value behavior, and return values. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'Export the open document as Markdown' and specifies the content types converted (headings, bold/italic runs, lists, tables, plain paragraphs) to GitHub-Flavoured Markdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_from_markdown (reverse operation) and convert_to_pdf (different 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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when Markdown output is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_body_text for plain text. The context of sibling tools helps differentiate, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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