export_departments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only export operation and adds the 'core fields only' constraint. However, it does not explain what 'effective' means, nor does it describe the output format or any pagination/limitation behavior.

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 of nine words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word adds value.

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?

With no output schema and only a brief description, the tool lacks essential context. The agent is left unsure what 'core fields' includes, what 'effective' means (e.g., current snapshot vs. historical), and how the language parameter might alter output. This ambiguity could lead to incorrect tool selection among similar export options.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'language' with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter, such as how language affects the exported data or whether it is a display language or data language.

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 action ('Export'), the resource ('effective department master data'), and the scope ('core fields only'). This distinguishes it from broader organization export tools like export_organization_full and export_organization_with_employees.

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 usage context is implied through the resource name ('department master data'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparisons or exclusions are provided to help the agent choose among the many export tools.

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