mindbase_export

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that the tool copies the project tree to artifacts/exports/<projectId>-<timestamp>/ and that zip-archive behavior additionally requires the external `zip` command if available. This gives the agent a good sense of side effects and external dependency, though failure behavior when zip is unavailable is not stated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a terse breakdown of the two modes. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without filler or repetition.

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 covers input semantics and destination paths well, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns on success or failure. It also does not explain the behavior when `zip` is unavailable, which is a notable edge case for an otherwise simple 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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining what each target value actually does and revealing that projectId is used in the output path. This goes beyond simply restating the schema.

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 opens with the action and object: 'Export a project to a portable artifact.' It then differentiates the two target types by describing exact output locations. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like export_subgraph, but the core purpose is clear and specific.

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 explains what each target mode does but never says when a user should choose this tool over alternatives such as export_subgraph or other export-related tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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