export_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that large exports go to a temp file and returns a path instead of inline XML. However, it doesn't specify if the tool is destructive, read-only, or any permission requirements. The output format (inline XML vs file path) is partially described but lacks details on how to retrieve the file.

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 very concise, using a few sentences to convey all critical information. No wasted words, and the structure (inline list of kind options) is efficient.

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 is provided, so description should cover return values. It mentions inline XML for small exports and file path for large ones, but doesn't specify the exact format of the path or potential error conditions. Given the complexity and lack of schema coverage, it's moderately complete but has gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates well. It explains the kind parameter in detail and clarifies when name and task are required (for dfb and section). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though task and name are not fully documented.

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 tool exports project content as Control Expert XML and returns it inline. It details the different kinds of export (variables, program, configuration, dfb, section), which distinguishes it from siblings like export_project and import_xml.

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 guidance on when to use each kind parameter, including requirements for dfb (requires name) and section (requires task and name). It also mentions handling of large exports via temp file. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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