aga_export_bundle

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 implies a read-only packaging operation but doesn't detail aspects like whether it requires authentication, its rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., file type, structure). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a specific reference ('Claim 9'), making it zero-waste and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format, which are gaps considering the complexity implied by terms like 'Merkle proofs' and 'offline verification'.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline high score for this context.

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's purpose: to package artifacts, receipts, and Merkle proofs for offline verification. It specifies the verb 'package' and the resources involved, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aga_verify_bundle' or 'aga_generate_receipt', which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'offline verification' but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions relative to siblings such as 'aga_verify_artifact' or 'aga_verify_bundle', leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

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