export_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file overwrites), required permissions, or what happens to existing files. The agent cannot infer whether this is a safe read-only operation or a mutating export.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and key choices. It uses no filler and efficiently communicates the core purpose and format options.

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?

The description is sparse for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not mention side effects (e.g., writing files, overwriting), required permissions, or what constitutes a successful result. The '+pack for atlas' hint touches on related functionality but doesn't clarify dependencies or edge cases.

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?

The description explains the 'fmt' parameter with 'json|binary' and '+pack for atlas', adding meaning beyond the schema's default. It does not elaborate on 'project' or 'out_dir', but these are fairly self-explanatory from their names. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more explicit about all parameters.

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 a .spine project') and the resource (runtime files), with format options. This distinguishes it from siblings like pack_atlas and project_info, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for generating runtime files but lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or boundaries with sibling tools like pack_atlas or preview.

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