Export all game texts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the file is written inside the project, the default path, and crucially that existing translations are carried over by key so re-exporting never loses work. It omits whether a re-export overwrites unrelated edits to the file's other columns or clears empty translations, which would complete the mutation story.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads the verb, output format, and default path before the detail. It is long, but nearly every clause carries actionable information (carry-over behavior, column list, import follow-up); only the event-text enumeration is slightly sprawling.

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 3-param, no-output-schema export tool, the description covers effects, defaults, idempotency, and the follow-up tool. The one gap is that it never describes what the call itself returns (row count, file path confirmation, warnings), which is the kind of detail the missing output schema would otherwise supply.

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 67%; the description adds meaning by tying format to the resulting extension (default localization/texts.csv, CSV or JSON), naming the categories that correspond to the scope array, and explaining that the translation column may be left empty. It does not explain how the scope enum values map one-to-one to the listed content categories, but the coverage and defaults make calling it straightforward.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and resource (every translatable text of the project), then enumerates exactly which content categories are covered (database names/descriptions/messages, System terms, type names, game title, map display names, event text). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling import_texts, which is named as a separate step.

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?

Explains the workflow explicitly: export, fill in the translation column (leave empty to keep the original), then use import_texts. It also points to the rpgmaker-localization skill for control-code and message-length rules. It does not state any when-not-to-use condition, but the sequencing against import_texts is clear.

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