export_work_items_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully states that working with Plane does not change Plane, which implies a read-only export. But it does not disclose file output behavior, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or synchronization expectations, which matter for an export tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and followed by compact, useful examples. Every sentence and example 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?

The tool has six parameters, complex object inputs, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description gives examples for two optional inputs but leaves required scoping and output-location behavior unexplained. Output schema coverage means return values need not be described, but the input side remains under-specified.

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 explain the six parameters. It only provides example shapes for filters and layout, while title, project_id, output_directory, and the format enum's practical meaning are not addressed. The examples help but do not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 filtered Plane work items as a Word or PDF report. The output format and read-only nature are clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_work_items or find_work_items, but the reporting/export action is distinct.

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 examples of filters and layout, and 'without changing Plane' signals a read-only export use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools such as list_work_items or audit_work_items.

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