export-prompts

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 not explain side effects (e.g., whether it returns data, saves a file, or prompts the user), nor does it clarify if the operation is read-only or destructive. The phrase 'export to JSON format' is ambiguous regarding the actual output mechanism.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no filler words. Every word is functional. It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose.

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 tool complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., file size limits). The user is left guessing how the export works and what to expect.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already documents. Parameters like 'filterByTags', 'includeMetadata', etc., are not elaborated upon; the description does not provide examples or clarify interactions between 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 'Export prompts to JSON format for backup or sharing' clearly states the action (export) and resource (prompts) with a specified format (JSON) and purpose (backup/sharing). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like import-prompts or explain scope (all prompts vs filtered), which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import-prompts or list-prompts. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, such as having prompts to export, or when export is preferred over other operations.

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