workiva_export_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (returns a download URL) and lists the accepted formats, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens on failure. This is minimal but adequate for a simple export operation.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a one-line summary followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with 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 tool is simple (2 params, output schema present), and the description explains the return value and all parameters. It could be more helpful by clarifying its scope relative to other export tools, but for a straightforward export operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful definitions for both parameters: file_id as 'The file UUID' and format with the list of acceptable values. This adds value beyond the raw schema and covers all parameters.

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 file from Workiva and returns a download URL, providing a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling export tools like workiva_export_document or workiva_export_spreadsheet, the generic 'file' resource and the mention of a download URL differentiate it enough for basic understanding.

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. The description does not mention that this is for generic file exports, nor does it warn against using it for documents or spreadsheets, leaving the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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