export_table_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions the output formats. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, how the export is delivered (e.g., file vs. string), any size limits, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotation support.

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 sentence that quickly states the action and output formats. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or filler content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's 5 parameters, no output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify the export output format/delivery mechanism, constraints like the default limit, or any distinguishing context from similar data-retrieval tools. The high schema coverage mitigates parameter ambiguity but does not compensate for the missing high-level behavioral context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including the format enum and defaults. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Export') and resource ('table data'), along with specific output formats (JSON or CSV). This precise framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like execute_read_query or describe_table, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 verb 'export' implies the tool is for obtaining data in a portable format, but the description does not explicitly discuss when to use it over alternatives like execute_read_query or provide any exclusions. No explicit usage guidance is given, only what is inferred from the tool's name.

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