typst_export_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful composite behavior: a file sync side effect plus a compile step plus a save. However, it doesn't say where the synchronized files land, whether local files are overwritten, whether authentication to typst.app is required, or what happens if outputPath is omitted. Those are real gaps for a tool with network and filesystem side effects.

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 sentence of moderate length that front-loads the action sequence (sync, compile, save) with no filler. It reads as a run-on only because it packs three distinct phases into one clause chain.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description should state what is returned (a path, a binary, or nothing) and what happens when outputPath is omitted. Neither is covered, though the core three-phase behavior is conveyed.

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 100%, so projectId and mainFile are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces outputPath as the save destination and adds the compile-target framing for mainFile, but does not clarify the optional-vs-required behavior of outputPath. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states specific verbs and resources: synchronize project files, compile to PDF, save to outputPath. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like typst_capture_screenshot or typst_read_file, which do not produce a compiled PDF. It stops short of naming an alternative, so it's clear but not perfectly differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (you would call this to get a PDF), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus e.g. typst_capture_screenshot or typst_read_file, and no prerequisites or caveats are given. The reader must infer the context.

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