apps_file_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: the export is a fixed snapshot, it returns a reference plus sha256, and it does not alter the preview or persist the App - which is what makes readOnlyHint plausible for a tool named 'export'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return contract, then the negative constraints. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming what comes back (reference and sha256). Combined with the alternative-tool routing, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only workspaceId's origin remains unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does specify that 'path' is a relative file within the App workspace, and implies workspaceId scopes it, but it never explains workspaceId's format or how to obtain it, leaving the second required parameter underspecified.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a fixed download snapshot of a relative file in the current App workspace.' It explicitly states the scope (relative file, current App workspace) and names the sibling it hands off to (file_download), so it is distinguishable from apps_file_commit, apps_export_begin and the file_* 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?

It routes explicitly: 'use file_download with app-workspace' for retrieval of the produced reference, and it draws exclusions with 'Does not change preview or save the App.' Both when-to-use and what-it-does-not-do are stated, rather than inferred.

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