Export Page

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it explains the two possible result shapes (inline single page vs. a zip download link), the conditions that trigger the zip (children, attachments, page too long), and the 10-minute link expiry. That expiry and the auto-fallback are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the result-shape caveat and the sibling routing. 'As Docmost does' is a slightly odd aside but it usefully signals native-format parity, so nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description still adds the crucial distinction between inline return and a time-limited zip link, plus the decision rule versus get_page. For a read-only, 4-parameter export tool with full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the consequence of include_children/include_attachments (the result becomes a zip link) and of format (Markdown or HTML), which the terse schema descriptions do not convey. It stops short of giving the page-id format details, but the schema already covers that.

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+resource ('Export a page') plus the output formats (Markdown or HTML), and explicitly contrasts itself with get_page. An agent can distinguish it from the read-oriented siblings 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?

Gives an explicit when-not ('To read a page, use get_page') and an explicit when ('export when the person wants a file'), naming the alternative tool and the intent that selects it. Only gap is that export_space is not mentioned, but the page/space split is obvious from the name.

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