Export Document Markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them: it says nothing about conversion fidelity (e.g., what markdown export loses), auth/workspace requirements, or the effect of the frontmatter option.

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 zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral and parameter detail is missing rather than a sign of disciplined drafting.

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 tool is simple (3 params, one required) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for an export/conversion tool the frontmatter behavior and the fidelity trade-off versus export_with_fidelity_report are material omissions.

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 67%, with includeFrontmatter carrying no description at all. The description does not compensate — it never mentions frontmatter, defaults, or what 'includeFrontmatter' adds to the output, leaving the one undocumented parameter unexplained in both places.

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 ('Export') plus resource ('AFFiNE document content') and the output format (markdown), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling export_with_fidelity_report or explain how it differs from read_doc/get_doc.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over export_with_fidelity_report or simply reading the doc. No prerequisites, no when-not conditions, and no mention of alternatives are given.

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