Export Global Interactive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful, non-obvious behavior that the call will block on user elicitation when preferences are omitted, but says nothing about whether elicitation is mandatory, how many prompts occur, or what is produced.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the elicitation caveat. There is mild redundancy between 'elicitation' and 'will elicit' but nothing extraneous.

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 eight undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what the export returns or what 'global' spans, an agent still cannot tell what the result of a successful call looks like or how the optional parameters change it.

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 coverage is 0% for 8 optional parameters, and the description only collectively calls them 'export preferences' without mapping format, registry, compression, output_format, include_config, include_metadata, include_versions, or schemas_per_file to any meaning. The only real signal is that omitting them triggers elicitation.

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?

States the action (global export) plus the distinguishing trait — it is interactive and elicits configuration — which separates it from the plain export_global sibling. Beyond that it never says what 'global' scope actually covers.

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 second sentence implies the selection condition: use this when you have not already determined export preferences and are willing to prompt the user. There is no explicit 'use X instead when preferences are known' statement naming export_global, so the routing is only implied.

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