read_export_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states it is a read operation (non-destructive) and summarizes, but does not mention potential size limits, permissions, or whether it reads the entire directory. The description is adequate but lacks detail for full transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with every word contributing to clarity. No unnecessary verbiage.

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 no output schema and one parameter, the description covers the main purpose and lists what the summary contains. It lacks details on return format but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. Could be enhanced with usage examples.

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 100% with one parameter (exportPath). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, which already describes it as 'Path to the product-plan export directory'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra semantic value is provided.

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 'Read and summarize' and the resource 'entire Design OS export package structure', listing specific components (sections, design system, shell, data model, instructions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_component' or 'list_sections' by emphasizing the whole package.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it's for a comprehensive overview, but there is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools.

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