export_subject

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. While 'Export' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this is a safe operation, what format the export produces, whether it's a bulk operation, or any performance implications. The description lacks crucial behavioral context needed for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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 at just 5 words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension while still conveying the core purpose.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'subject' means in this system, what gets exported, in what format, or how the various parameters affect the export. The agent would be operating largely in the dark when using this tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It mentions 'subject' but doesn't explain what a subject is in this context or what the other 5 parameters (context, include_config, include_metadata, include_versions, registry) control. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 action ('Export') and resource ('all versions of a subject'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'export_context', 'export_global', or 'export_schema', which appear to be related export operations in the same system.

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. With multiple export-related tools in the sibling list (export_context, export_global, export_schema), there's no indication of what distinguishes exporting a 'subject' from these other export operations or when each should be used.

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