export_all_collections

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 and does so effectively. It clearly describes the asynchronous nature of the operation, potential time requirements for large workspaces, what the function returns (operation information including status), and how to access the completed file. The only minor gap is lack of explicit rate limit or permission requirements.

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 and appropriately sized. It begins with the core purpose, immediately highlights important behavioral characteristics with 'IMPORTANT', provides clear usage guidelines in bullet points, and concludes with parameter and return value documentation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema coverage, the description provides excellent context about the asynchronous operation, return format, and usage scenarios. The only gap is that without an output schema, more detail about the structure of the returned 'information about the export operation' would be helpful for the agent to understand 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates well by explaining the 'format' parameter with specific enum values ('outline-markdown', 'json', or 'html') and providing a default value. This adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, though it could benefit from brief explanations of each format's characteristics.

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 ('Exports the entire workspace content to a downloadable file') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'export_collection' and 'export_document' by specifying it exports 'entire workspace content' including 'all collections, documents, and their hierarchies'. This provides clear differentiation from partial export tools.

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 explicitly provides four specific use cases when to use this tool: creating backups, migrating content, archiving documents, and getting comprehensive exports. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'entire workspace' scope versus partial exports available through other tools.

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