export_master_xlsx

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the .nsm is not modified and returns a result/error. However, it does not disclose potential issues like file size, permissions, or overwriting behavior, which could affect agent decision-making.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains core behavior, input, and output. The presence of an output schema (though not elaborated) is acceptable. Lacks edge cases but adequate.

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 adds meaningful context for the 'master' parameter with an example ('[MASTER]office.nsm') and clarifies it is within the working directory. This goes beyond the schema's mere string type.

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 converts .nsm to .xlsx for offline use. It specifies the verb 'convert' and resource 'master'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling export tools like export_device_table_html or export_diagram, which lower the score slightly.

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 provides context for when to use (Excel/offline edition) and where output goes, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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