pine_export_saved_source

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only has to supply extra behavioral context. It adds only that the output is a 'confined JSON artifact', and that phrase is never defined: the description does not say whether the artifact is returned inline or written somewhere, how 'confined' limits its size or scope, or why idempotentHint is false. Useful, but thin against a lowered bar.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the output artifact, with no filler. Its brevity is close to under-specification, but the sentence itself is structurally sound.

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 four-parameter tool with half a schema undocumented and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent without the artifact's destination, format, or limits, and without any explanation of version selection or the layout-id safety check. Annotations cover only the safety profile, so the remaining gaps matter.

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 coverage is only 50%: target_id and expected_layout_id are documented, but script_id and version (string or integer) are not. The definition mentions none of the four parameters, so it does not explain what version selects or warn that an expected_layout_id mismatch aborts the operation before any write. With that much of the schema uncovered, the definition should compensate and does not.

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 definition gives a specific verb ('Export') plus a precise resource ('one saved script's exact source and metadata') and a described output form ('a confined JSON artifact'), so the agent knows what the operation produces. But it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as pine_get_saved_source or pine_get_source, so the agent has to guess which tool fills the 'export' role versus the 'get' role.

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 definition gives no conditions for when to call this tool instead of pine_get_saved_source, pine_get_source, or pine_list_scripts. The only usage hint is the word 'saved', and nothing tells the agent when not to use the tool (for example, for an unsaved buffer or a script that has not been bound to a pane).

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