edict_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'validation and manifest generation' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic export, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, error handling, performance characteristics, or output format details.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys the core functionality with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by key additional features. Every element earns its place in this compact description.

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 that exports to WASM with validation and manifest generation (moderate complexity), with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, what validation entails, error conditions, or how the manifest is structured. More context is needed for proper agent usage.

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 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the 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 states the specific action ('Export') and resource ('Edict AST') with the output format ('portable WASM skill package') and additional functions ('validation and manifest generation'). It distinguishes from siblings like edict_compile (compilation only) or edict_package (packaging without WASM export).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edict_compile or edict_package. The description implies usage for WASM export scenarios but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools that might handle similar functionality.

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