mindmeister_export_map

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

The description details that the export is fetched via GET with an appropriate Accept header and returns binary content as a base64 string. This goes beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: true) to explain the actual request behavior and response format, with no contradictions.

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 two paragraphs: an overview and a detailed docstring-style section. It is succinct yet covers the essential aspects without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more concise by removing the redundant listing of formats.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), but the description still provides the complete return structure with keys (format, filename, content_base64, size_bytes). It sufficiently explains the base64 encoding and implies the file save process. No gaps are evident for this straightforward export operation.

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?

The input schema's top-level parameter 'params' lacks a description, but the description compensates by specifying the nested fields (map_id, format) and the list of formats. It adds clarity to the structure, though it largely repeats information from the schema's $defs.

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 a MindMeister map to a specific file format and lists supported formats (pdf, docx, pptx, rtf, image, presentation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mindmeister_get_map (returns JSON) and mindmeister_get_map_image (returns image), making the purpose specific and 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?

While the description lists the supported formats and implies use for file exports, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No direct mention of when not to use it or comparisons with sibling tools like mindmeister_get_map or mindmeister_get_map_image is provided.

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