exportBookmarks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'various formats' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'export'), if it requires specific permissions, generates files as output, has rate limits, or involves asynchronous processing (though 'getExportStatus' suggests potential async behavior). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and resource.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and potential complexity (e.g., export operations often involve file generation or async status). It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a file, a job ID, or status), behavioral constraints, or how it integrates with siblings like 'getExportStatus'. For an export tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (broken, collectionId, duplicates, format) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond implying format options with 'various formats', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Export bookmarks in various formats' clearly states the action (export) and resource (bookmarks), but it's vague about scope and differentiation. It doesn't specify whether this exports all bookmarks, filtered bookmarks, or collections, nor how it differs from sibling tools like 'getBookmarks' or 'searchBookmarks' which might retrieve bookmarks without exporting.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getBookmarks' (likely for retrieval) and 'searchBookmarks' (likely for filtered retrieval), the description doesn't clarify that this tool is specifically for exporting data to files rather than just accessing it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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