export_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool exports a schema but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it modifies data, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling export tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'schema' is in this context, how parameters interact, or what the export produces, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'specified format' which hints at the 'format' parameter but doesn't explain the other 4 parameters (context, registry, subject, version) or their relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides through property names.

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 states the action ('Export') and resource ('a single schema'), but is vague about what 'schema' refers to in this context and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'export_context', 'export_global', or 'export_subject'. It specifies 'in the specified format' which adds some detail but remains generic.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_context' or 'export_subject'. The description implies it's for exporting schemas, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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