export_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing determinism, one-way semantics, and that the markdown copy is not authoritative. It doesn't cover auth requirements or whether as_agent changes permissions/visibility.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then format options, then the one-way caveat. Nothing is padding; each sentence adds a distinct fact.

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, but the description characterizes the JSON return ('full structured tree of tasks, findings, attempts, verdicts') and markdown's human-readable stability. Only the as_agent parameter remains unexplained, which is a modest gap for a low-complexity read tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain Format's allowed values (markdown, json) - information notably absent from the schema - but PlanId is unstated and as_agent is completely undocumented in both places.

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. It adds scope ('deterministic snapshot') and intended destinations (repo, chat) so the agent can distinguish it from read tools like get_plan_dashboard or list_plans without opening a schema.

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 use contexts (committing to a repo, pasting into chat) and clarifies the direction of the operation ('export is one-way - the database is the source of truth'). No sibling is named as an alternative, but no sibling performs export, so the routing gap is minor.

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