export_handoff

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

Discloses that it reads every file over CDP and creates a bundle with specific contents. However, no details on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies server state), performance implications, or output location. Without annotations, the description carries the burden, and it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loading the deprecation and alternative, then the action and use cases. No unnecessary words. However, the structure could be improved by placing the use cases before the deprecation note for clarity.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage, and output type (bundle). But it lacks parameter details and does not explain 'local' or how the bundle is stored. Sufficient for a deprecated tool, but incomplete for novice agents.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'projectId' and 'destDir' implicitly (reads files, builds local bundle) but does not define their types, formats, or constraints. The agent would need to infer meaning from the tool name and context.

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 deprecated status and suggests the preferred alternative (mint_handoff). It specifies the action: builds a local handoff bundle from project files, chats, and README. This distinguishes it from siblings like mint_handoff.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use only for offline bundles or to commit transcripts into a repo') and when not to (prefer mint_handoff). No ambiguity.

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