Project Tessera

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only covers format options and basic usage. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output behavior (though output schema exists), or whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific format details and a usage tip for 'obsidian'. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient 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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions and an output schema present, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and tool purpose. However, it lacks behavioral details like authentication or side effects, which are important for a tool that exports data.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'format' parameter's semantics, listing supported formats and their purposes. It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail default behavior more explicitly.

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 specific action ('Export all your knowledge') and resource ('knowledge'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'export_memories' or 'export_for_ai' by specifying comprehensive export of all knowledge rather than subsets or specialized formats.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use specific formats (e.g., 'obsidian' for Obsidian vaults), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_memories' or 'export_for_ai', leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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