export_xml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it triggers any side effects, or what happens to the data. For an export tool, one might expect a read-only hint, but nothing is stated. This is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise (two words) but is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or front-loading of important constraints. While brevity is positive, it comes at the cost of essential information, making this ineffective.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the description is completely inadequate. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly without external knowledge. It needs to specify what is exported, how parameters interact, and what the output format is.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the meaning of project_id, filter_ids, filter_type, or document. An agent has no idea what these parameters do or how they affect the export. The description adds no value beyond the bare parameter names in the schema.

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 'Export XML' essentially repeats the tool name without adding any specificity. It does not state what data is exported, for which resource, or what 'XML' refers to. The presence of a project_id parameter suggests exporting a project's XML, but this is not mentioned. This is a vague purpose with no differentiation from siblings like import_xml.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. It does not note that this complements import_xml or that it might be used for exporting project data in XML format. The description provides zero usage context.

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