Export Opml Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format (OPML XML string) and that all feeds are included, which implies a safe read. However, it never explicitly states the operation is non-destructive/read-only or notes any size/rate constraints for large feed sets.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes information about scope and output format.

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?

An output schema is present, so return-value details need not be re-explained, and a zero-parameter tool has little else to document. The only minor gap is the absence of read-only/behavioral confirmation, which annotations would normally supply.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the schema needs compensating for, and the description correctly implies no filtering options exist.

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?

States a specific verb (export), resource (all feeds), and output format (OPML XML string) in one clause. This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling import_opml_tool without needing to name it.

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 purpose implies when to use it (backing up/migrating feeds), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of import_opml_tool as the counterpart operation. Usage is inferable from the name and description but not spelled out.

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