export_eos_ascii

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return shape (file content string, filename suffix, warnings), the round-trip preservation mechanism via $$ LACYLIGHTS comment lines, that EOS ignores those comments, and deterministic byte-identical output. It stops short of stating side effects or required permissions explicitly, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return shape, then preservation behavior, then determinism. No filler and every sentence adds distinct information.

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 single-parameter export tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced (content string, filename suffix, warnings) and the non-obvious comment-preservation behavior, so nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents projectId. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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 a specific verb (export), resource (LacyLights project) and target format (ETC Eos ASCII .asc showfile), which cleanly separates it from siblings like export_data_table, export_data_workbook, and the inverse import_eos_ascii. An agent can identify the tool's output artifact without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the naming and the .asc format, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to the data-table/workbook exporters, and no stated prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer routing among the export family.

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