Export project to JSON

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully adds the crucial side-effect location ('in the cache folder, never next to the project') plus the conditional re-export rule. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotation, though it does not say what files are produced or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key constraint (cache folder, not next to project) in parentheses; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers destination and caching but leaves the return value, produced file naming, and the 'refresh' parameter's effect unspecified — enough to attempt a call, not enough to predict results.

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% for two parameters. The description never explains the required 'project' argument (path? name?) or the 'refresh' boolean; the 're-exports only when the project changed' phrase loosely implies refresh semantics but does not state what setting refresh=true does.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Exports a .spine project's skeletons to JSON') and specifies the output location, which clearly separates it from generic siblings like spine_export. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with spine_export or spine_showcase, so an agent must infer which export variant applies.

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?

'Re-exports only when the project changed' implies cached/conditional behavior and hints at when a re-run is unnecessary, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., spine_export) for non-JSON needs.

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