export_to_json

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

The description states it 'reads' records and returns JSON, implying a read-only operation. With no annotations provided, the description does not explicitly disclose whether this is a safe, non-destructive operation or any authorization requirements.

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 well-structured with a short paragraph followed by Args and Returns sections. It is concise but could be slightly tighter; the Returns section is detailed but adds value.

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 3 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers parameters, return values, and use case. It lacks mention of prerequisites like a connection, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter: file_name, record_ids, and expand_mv (with behavior for True/False). This adds meaningful information beyond the schema titles.

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 exports records from a Universe file to JSON format. The verb 'export' and resource 'records to JSON' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like export_to_csv and read_record.

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 description mentions the tool is useful for data analysis and integration, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., export_to_csv, read_record) nor when not to use it.

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