export_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares the output is deterministic, that export is one-way so the DB remains the source of truth (i.e. non-mutating), and what the JSON payload contains. It omits permission/auth requirements and any behavior tied to the undocumented as_agent parameter.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then format options, then the one-way caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations means the description must do everything, and while the export semantics and return shapes are covered reasonably, the third parameter (as_agent) is entirely undocumented and permissions/identity behavior is unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the Format property has no enum in the schema, so the description's format ∈ {markdown, json} plus the markdown-vs-JSON tradeoff adds genuine value. PlanId is only implied, and as_agent is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource ("Export a deterministic snapshot of a plan") plus the output forms (markdown/json) and the snapshot's semantics. It is clearly distinguishable in spirit from read siblings like get_plan_dashboard, but it never names an alternative, so it lands just below the top band.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ("suitable for committing to a repo or pasting into chat") and a directional constraint ("Export is one-way"). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over get_plan_dashboard/list_plans or exclude any scenario.

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