apidog_export_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. 'Export' and 'understand the current documentation state' imply a non-mutating read operation, and the description provides useful content-level detail. It does not go further to describe output size, format, or explicit confirmation of no side effects, but for a read-only export this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and content scope; the second gives direct usage guidance. Every word earns its place .

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 two - parameter, fully - described export tool with no output schema, the description is complete.It states what is returned (full OpenAPI spec with specifics), and when to call it (before changes). An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly .

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only implicit context by naming specific x-apidog extensions, which aligns with includeExtensions but does not meaningfully expand on the schema's own 'Include x-apidog-* extensions' 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Export'), identifies the resource ('full OpenAPI spec from Apidog'), and enumerates the contents (endpoints, schemas, tags, x-apidog-* extensions). It clearly differentiates from siblings like apidog_list_endpoints, apidog_import_spec, and apidog_get_endpoint by describing a complete export rather than a subset or an import.

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?

The description gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to understand the current documentation state before making changes.' This implies a read-before-write workflow and helps an agent choose it ahead of reorganization or upsert tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions when not to use it.

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