ig_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail (what gets exported, DM opt-in, dual JSON+CSV output), but it omits operational traits an agent would want for a full-account scrape: runtime/scale, rate limits, and that output is written to disk (out_dir), which sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope (TODA la cuenta) and outputs come first. It is efficient, though packing all export contents into one parenthetical slightly reduces scannability.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual scope and the JSON+CSV format, but omits the meaning of out_dir, max_media, and account, and says nothing about scale or expected duration of a full scrape.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It maps to with_dms, with_comments, and with_insights (profile/posts/comments/metrics/DMs), but leaves account, out_dir, and max_media entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (scrape/export the ENTIRE account) and enumerates the resource scope: profile, all posts, comments, metrics, and optionally DMs, in JSON + CSV. The word 'TODA' and the full-account scope clearly separate it from the granular per-resource siblings like ig_profile, ig_media_list, and ig_comments.

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 never states when to reach for this bulk export versus the granular siblings (ig_profile, ig_media_list, ig_analytics). It implies a full-account use case but gives no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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