export_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool exports markdown to PDF/DOCX but doesn't describe what 'export' entails (e.g., file creation, byte return, permissions needed, rate limits, or side effects). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file path, bytes, success status), behavioral details like error handling, or how parameters interact (e.g., 'source_path' for images). For a tool with this complexity, more context 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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'content' is markdown and 'format' is PDF/DOCX, which the schema's enum and descriptions already cover. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Export') and target resource ('markdown text'), specifying the output formats ('PDF or DOCX'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'render_markdown' (which renders but doesn't export) and 'export_slideshow' (which exports slideshows, not markdown documents). However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'export' entails (e.g., file generation vs. content transformation).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing markdown content), exclusions (e.g., not for HTML export), or comparisons to siblings like 'render_markdown' (for preview) or 'export_slideshow' (for slides). Usage is implied from the description but not explicitly stated.

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