pcm_export_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states 'Read-only; no relay contact' (safety profile) and adds the restore limitation, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't disclose behavior details like whether it overwrites existing files, what the output schema/return value contains, or whether the export can be large/slow for big projects.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then a crucial caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value — scope, format, read-only nature, restore limitation, rollback warning. Zero filler.

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 description covers the essential behavioral boundary (no rollback) and the scope well, which is the main complexity here. However, given 0% param coverage, it stops short of fully explaining parameter expectations. An output schema exists which offloads return-value explanation, slightly raising completeness.

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. Yet none of the 3 parameters (project, out_path, overwrite) are described. The description only explains the tool-level behavior, not what 'project' refers to, what format 'out_path' expects, or the semantics of the overwrite flag beyond the schema default.

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?

Clearly states the tool exports a whole project as an `.apcmp` archive, with a specific verb (export), a specific resource (whole project), and output format (.apcmp). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pcm_export_scd, pcm_export_ied, pcm_export_parameters which export narrower scopes — 'whole project' names the scope precisely.

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?

Explicitly recommends using it as a snapshot before any change, names the constraint (no CLI restore), and warns 'Do not treat this as automated rollback.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and flags a critical limitation. Could mention alternatives but the export-tool family is self-evident.

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