wiki.export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It correctly states that data is exported as markdown files to a directory, implying a write side effect. However, it does not disclose whether the operation modifies the wiki data, if it is reversible, or what happens if the directory already exists.

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, concise sentence that covers the main action and outputs. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Slightly more detail on parameter roles could improve it without harming conciseness.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a bit more context is needed. The description covers the overall purpose and outputs, but omits return format, error conditions, and the effect of the individual boolean flags. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 only 17%, but the description lists the resource categories (sources, KB, memory) that map to the boolean parameters. The meaning of 'project_id' and 'project_root' is not described beyond the schema. The description adds some value by grouping what is exported, but does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses specific verbs ('Export') and resources ('wiki data (raw sources, KB entries, memory)') and specifies the output format ('markdown files to a directory'). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'wiki.link' or 'source.ingest', but the overall purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'source.ingest' or 'kb.get'. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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