Export survey structure to a file (experimental)

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. Description adds critical details: writes a file, returns path instead of base64, always fails with EXPORT_UNSUPPORTED without flag. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with primary action, includes critical caveats about experimental status and failure condition. No wasted words.

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?

Covers all essential aspects for an agent: purpose, experimental nature, requirements, failure scenario, and preferred alternatives. Output schema presumably handles return values, so no gap.

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 100%, each parameter has a clear description. The tool description does not add new information beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 attempts to export a survey's structure as .lss and write it to a directory, returning a path. It distinguishes itself from other export tools by specifying it's for survey structure and is experimental.

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?

Explicit guidance: prefers property-based verification over this tool, states experimental requirement (LIMESURVEY_ENABLE_EXPERIMENTAL_METHODS=true), and notes that core RC2 lacks this method, so it only works with custom plugins. Clear when to use and alternatives.

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