export_crawl

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

The description discloses the main behavioral effects: loading a saved crawl, generating CSV exports, returning an export_id, and optionally saving reports. The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so most behavioral burden falls on the description, which it handles well. It could mention persistence or overwrite behavior more explicitly, but the provided details are not misleading.

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 organized into a one-sentence purpose, Args list, and Returns note. The long default export_tabs string is verbose but functionally necessary since the schema omits it. No filler or redundant restatements of the tool name or schema fields are present.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the prerequisite (existing crawl from list_crawls), all four parameters, the default behavior, and post-export reading via read_crawl_data. The return payload is summarized clearly. There is enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without external assumptions.

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%, so the description must compensate entirely for parameter meaning. It does so thoroughly: db_id is tied to list_crawls, export_tabs has a full default and points to a reference resource, and bulk_export and save_report both receive concrete examples. This exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('export') and resource ('saved crawl' data), with a concrete output format ('CSV files'). It also distinguishes itself from read_crawl_data by indicating that the exported files are read separately. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 establishes clear context: it loads an existing crawl identified by a db_id from list_crawls and produces export artifacts. It also tells the agent to use read_crawl_data to consume the results. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like aggregate_crawl_data, but the workflow context is strong enough to guide correct selection.

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