export_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates .xef or .zef files and affects the full application, but it doesn't mention side effects like overwriting files, permission requirements, or whether the project must be open. This is a moderate gap.

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 concise, fitting in one sentence that covers the main action and use cases. It could be slightly improved by separating the usage guidance into a second sentence, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context about formats and use cases. However, it lacks details on file path format, overwrite behavior, and any constraints, which would make it complete.

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?

The only parameter 'path' is not explained in the description. Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description does not clarify that 'path' is the output file destination. This is a significant omission for a required parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'export' and the resource 'full application', specifying the output formats .xef and .zef XML exchange file. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_xml that likely export different formats.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: 'useful for backup, diffing, or migrating between Control Expert versions.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear.

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