workflowy_export_node

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 mentions 'Export' but doesn't specify the output format (e.g., JSON, text), whether it's a read-only operation, any rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but with no annotations and incomplete parameter coverage, it should provide more context on behavior and usage. The description is minimal and doesn't fully address the complexity of an export operation, leaving room for improvement in 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any details about the 'node_id' parameter, such as its format, what 'null' means, or examples. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the lack of any parameter explanation in the description reduces it to 3, as it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb ('Export') and resource ('a WorkFlowy node with all its children'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflowy_get_node' or 'workflowy_glimpse', which might also retrieve node data but in different formats or contexts, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'workflowy_get_node' or 'workflowy_glimpse', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks context for tool selection, leaving usage ambiguous.

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