export_working_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'Export' without specifying whether it is read-only, what the output format is, whether it includes resigned employees (given sibling tools distinguish active vs resigned), or if there are any side effects. This is a significant transparency 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the essential action and scope, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the export is delivered (e.g., file, JSON, CSV). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the result structure. The description is adequate for basic selection but incomplete for confident invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the description adds the key semantic that the export covers 'all employees,' which matches the empty schema. Since the schema provides no constraints, the description adds value by clarifying the scope, justifying the baseline of 4.

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 a specific verb ('Export') and a specific resource ('all employees' work-experience records'), making it distinct from sibling tools like export_education_history or export_employees. The scope ('all employees') is explicit and matches the absence of parameters.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when there is a need to export work-experience records for all employees. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the noun phrase 'work-experience records' distinguishes it from other export tools, giving the agent sufficient guidance.

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