model_export_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains what data is included and mentions the workspace path policy for file_path. However, it does not disclose side effects such as file overwriting, whether the JSON file is created atomically, potential size/performance implications, or what the call returns on success/failure. The provided context is meaningful but incomplete for a mutating export operation.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the main action and then using a colon-separated list to enumerate contents. The closing sentence on file_path policy is relevant and not redundant. It is longer than typical, but the complexity of the exported structure justifies the detail.

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 covers the input model_path and file_path, the detailed structure of the output JSON, and the policy constraint on file_path. It does not state the return value or error behavior, but the extensive enumeration of contents largely compensates. An agent can call this tool with reasonable confidence.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the input schema. The description adds a pointer to the workspace path policy and gives a model_path example, but these are minor additions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Export a model's full structure to one JSON file in a single call,' then enumerates the contained data in detail. It clearly differentiates from siblings like tablevar_get and the many object_get_* tools by positioning itself as a bulk replacement.

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 explicitly states the use case: 'for knowledge capture and build verification,' and names the alternative pattern it replaces ('thousands of per-field tablevar_get calls'). It does not list exclusions or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for bulk export scenarios.

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