export_platform

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses return format (dict with keys content, format, rule_count), behavior on unknown values (rejected via validation), and edge case of empty content. This provides comprehensive behavioral insight beyond what annotations would offer.

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?

Well-structured with sections for purpose, usage context, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value; no redundant phrasing. Information is front-loaded with purpose, then detailed guidance.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers input possibilities, output shape, error handling, and usage differentiation from siblings. It is complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 0% but the description lists all valid values for 'fmt' and explains validation behavior, adding meaning absent from the schema. The note about 'Unknown values are rejected by validation instead of silently guessing' provides critical usage guidance.

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 tool renders rule-level patterns into target editor config formats, listing specific platforms like Cursor, Windsurf, Codex. It distinguishes from siblings like export_claude_md and export_skill by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (for rules in a specific platform's file) and when to prefer alternatives, e.g., 'prefer export_claude_md() when you only need Claude's CLAUDE.md shape.' Provides clear context for non-Claude targets.

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