export_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It explains the path resolution and file extension behavior well, but the core action is ambiguous: it says 'returns it with an instruction to write,' contradicting the initial claim of exporting to a file. Missing details on side effects, permissions, or error handling.

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: a single opening sentence followed by a structured bullet list for arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (reducing need to describe return values), the description lacks clarity on overall behavior (write vs. instruction), error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., active project), and side effects. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, more contextual detail is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description rephrases each parameter and adds value for 'path' by explaining directory resolution and extension addition. Other parameters like 'expression' and 'pattern' are already clear from the schema, providing marginal added benefit.

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's purpose: 'Export rendered content to a file for knowledge indexing.' It identifies the verb (export) and the resource (rendered content), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_content, which only retrieves content without exporting.

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 description implies that export_content reuses get_content logic, hinting at a relationship but not explicitly stating when to use this tool over others. No 'when not to use' or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with only implicit guidance.

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