export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the output behavior: issues and pages return markdown, projects return file paths. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., creating files, permissions required, or whether the export is read-only). This is a moderate gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or prerequisites (e.g., whether the file system is needed), but for this complexity level, it is adequate.

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 parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds value by explicitly stating the different valid identifier formats (PRO-42, PRO-DOC-3, PRO) and the corresponding output types, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 action (Export as markdown) and the specific resource types (issue, page, project) with examples. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the export operation, which is unique among the tool list.

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 explains the scope of the tool (issue, page, or whole project) and hints at the output types (markdown, file paths). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but given the simple single-parameter interface, the context is sufficient.

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