Export With Fidelity Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the report contains (loss risk, unsupported native content), which is genuine beyond-schema context, but it says nothing about report size, granularity, or whether the export is coupled to the report generation failing.

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 compound output is stated before any elaboration. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

With an output schema present for the report and annotations covering the safety profile, most of the burden is already carried elsewhere. What remains missing is only the includeFrontmatter semantics and the sibling routing, which is a modest gap for a one-required-parameter read tool.

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%; docId and workspaceId are described in the schema, but includeFrontmatter has no description anywhere. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the one undocumented flag remains a genuine (if small) gap rather than a failure.

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) and compound resource (markdown + structured fidelity report) and names what the report covers (markdown loss risk, unsupported AFFiNE-native content). It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related siblings export_doc_markdown and analyze_doc_fidelity, whose combined behavior this tool appears to wrap.

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 phrase 'highlights markdown loss risk and unsupported AFFiNE-native content' implies the use case is exporting when content fidelity matters, but the description never says when to pick this over export_doc_markdown or analyze_doc_fidelity, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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