Export table

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description aligns with read-only behavior. It goes beyond by specifying the return shape (format, row_count, truncated, content) and the truncation condition. No destructive behavior is suggested, and the description adds value beyond annotations by detailing output fields.

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 two sentences long: the first sentence covers the core action and constraints, and the second sentence details the return object. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear 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?

Given the output schema is described in the description, it provides complete return value details. The description covers the main parameters and constraints. However, it could explicitly list the allowed values for 'format' (though implied by 'CSV or JSON') and mention that the tool may be resource-intensive for large tables. Overall, it is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the meaning and constraints of key parameters: schema and table are required and must be plain identifiers, limit defaults to 10000, format defaults to 'csv', and database targets a secondary read-only database. This adds significant value beyond the sparse schema.

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 serializes all rows in a specified schema.table to CSV or JSON, including constraints like limit and plain identifiers. This makes its purpose very specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_query (which exports query results) and list_tables (which lists but doesn't export).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides constraints (e.g., plain identifiers, limit) but no guidance on when to choose export_table over export_query or other export-related tools. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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