metadata_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is validated and that a gate can refuse the export, but it omits other consequential traits such as whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, or failure modes.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core transformation leads, followed by the gate rule and category semantics. Telegram-style abbreviations and arrows are efficient, though slightly terse for an unfamiliar reader.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the most consequential parameters (app_dir, categories) are covered. Still, for a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the missing privacy_url/support_url semantics and overwrite/permission behavior leave gaps.

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 0% and there are 7 parameters, so the description must fill the gap. It explains app_dir (gate), primary/secondary_category (appCategories ids), and implies source_md/dest_dir via the transformation line, but privacy_url and support_url are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a concrete input→output transformation (apple-metadata.md → fastlane/metadata/<locale>/*.txt) that an agent can act on, and differentiates itself from deliver_metadata by noting that the latter pushes to ASC. However, the actual verb ('export'/'write') is implied rather than stated, so it is clear but not perfectly crisp.

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?

It gives one conditional usage rule (when app_dir is supplied the ASO gate blocks export until ASO completes) and points at deliver_metadata for pushing to ASC. It does not, however, say when to use this over siblings like metadata_check, metadata_render_listing, or localize_apply, leaving the selection context largely inferred.

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