Export ResearchPack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add genuine value by stating 'deterministic' and 'without remote calls,' which are meaningful behavioral guarantees. But it omits other important behavior such as output format, side effects, whether a file is created, and permissions requirements.

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 a single sentence with no filler. Key qualifiers like 'deterministic' and 'without remote calls' are included directly, and the structure front-loads the core behavior. 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no nested objects, but it also has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what a ResearchPack is, what the return value will be, whether a file is written locally, or what failure modes exist. For a simple export tool, this is a moderate gap, not a fatal one.

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 needed to explain collection_id. It only refers to 'collection' generically; the parameter's role as the identifier of the collection to export is left largely to inference from the name and tool context. The schema only gives type and length constraints, so an agent can guess correctly, but the description adds little direct parameter guidance.

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 identifies a concrete action (export), a specific resource (a local collection ResearchPack), and two defining constraints: deterministic and no remote calls. This distinguishes it from siblings like import_research_pack and refresh_collection, which involve different operations or network behavior.

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 phrase 'without remote calls' implies this tool is for offline/deterministic exports, and 'local collection' hints at the intended scope. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it name a sibling as the better choice for remote-dependent or non-deterministic exports.

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