export_document

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 clearly states the tool exports content 'as plain markdown text' and 'without additional formatting,' which helps the agent understand the output behavior. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size constraints, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter/return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bulleted list enhances readability while maintaining efficiency. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns adequately. However, it lacks details on error handling or output specifics beyond 'markdown format,' which could be important for an agent invoking the tool without an output schema.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'document_id' refers to 'The document ID to export,' clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it doesn't provide details on ID format or sourcing, which could be helpful given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a document as plain markdown text') and resource ('document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'read_document' (which likely returns formatted content) or 'export_collection' (which exports collections rather than individual documents). The verb 'exports' is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios in a bulleted list ('when you need to: - Get clean markdown content without formatting - Extract document content for external use - Process document content in another application - Share document content outside Outline'), clearly indicating when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_document' (which might include formatting) or other export tools. It effectively guides the agent on appropriate contexts.

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