pages_export

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the export operation but does not mention possible overwriting of the destination, required permissions, whether the operation is synchronous, or any side effects beyond creating the exported file. This is minimal transparency for a tool that writes to the filesystem.

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 extremely concise, opening with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a compact parameter list. Every line adds value and there is no fluff or redundant schema repetition.

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 export tool, the description covers the essential aspects: source file, destination, and format. The output schema likely defines the return value, so that is not a gap. However, it could be more complete by noting overwrite behavior or permissions, but given the low complexity this is adequate.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: path as the source .pages file, destination as where to write, and fmt as the format with allowed values. This goes beyond the bare property names in the schema, though it omits noting the default value of pdf.

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 begins with 'Export a Pages document to PDF, Word or EPUB,' which uses a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pages_create, pages_read, and keynote_export_pdf by specifying both the app (Pages) and the action (export).

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 purpose is evident, so an agent can infer when to use this tool: when exporting a Pages document to one of the listed formats. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as keynote_export_pdf for Keynote documents, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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