export_xml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical side effect: 'Large exports are written to a temp file and the path is returned instead', which is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs to handle the response correctly. It could add detail on cleanup of temp files or exact size thresholds, but the core behavioral variation is clearly stated.

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 compact but the kind enumeration is packed densely in a few sentences without line breaks, making the conditional dependencies less scannable. It could be more readable with bullets or separators, though it's not bloated — every sentence carries information.

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 3 params, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the enum values, their parameter requirements, and the variable return behavior. The main gaps are the exact threshold for 'large exports' and temp-file cleanup semantics, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool, the essential information is present.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and no enum values for 'kind', yet the description fills this gap comprehensively by documenting each allowed value and its dependencies ('dfb' requires name, 'section' requires task and name). This fully compensates for the empty schema and gives the agent what it needs to construct valid calls.

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 states a specific verb ('Export'), a specific resource ('project content as Control Expert XML'), and a clear return behavior (inline or file path). It enumerates the five accepted kind values and their accompanying required parameters, which unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like import_xml, validate_xml, and export_project.

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 explains when each kind is appropriate ('all variables', 'all program logic', etc.) and which parameters are required for each sub-case. It doesn't explicitly name competing sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, but the kind enumeration provides clear selection guidance for the primary use case.

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