diana_experience_export

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that two files are written, the default output folder knowledge/export, and that this folder is not tracked in git — non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior, whether files are created if the folder is missing, or the return payload, so it is not fully transparent.

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 output artifacts and contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, then parameters are cleanly separated under an Args block. Slight density — the long clause listing status, triggers, verification results, usage and error-code index — is informative rather than wasteful, though it could be trimmed marginally.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still describes the generated documents in useful detail. The remaining gap is destructive/overwrite semantics for an export that writes into a default folder, which matters for a tool with no annotations at all.

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% (both properties have only title/default), so the description must compensate, and it does: include_drafts is explained as including unverified and disputed entries, clearly marked, with False meaning verified-only; folder is qualified as an absolute path to an alternative output directory. The default for include_drafts (true) is only implied by the phrasing rather than stated, which keeps this from a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource ("Export the experience handbook") and names the concrete artifacts produced: a Markdown file and a self-contained HTML page. It distinguishes itself from siblings like diana_experience_list or diana_experience_review by explicitly describing a document-generation output rather than a listing or review.

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?

Usage is implied by the artifact description (readable document, opens in any browser, prints to PDF), which suggests sharing/archival scenarios, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus diana_experience_list or diana_experience_review, and no when-not guidance. The include_drafts note helps scope the call but is parameter-level, not tool-selection-level.

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