shortlist_export

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not disclose the important behaviors: write side effects (where the file is written, whether an existing file is overwritten), whether a shortlist must be non-empty, or any auth/rate constraints. The Excel hint is useful, but the file-writing behavior, which is the tool's core mechanic, is left opaque.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the format options following immediately; there is no filler. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a file-producing tool, the destination and overwrite semantics are material omissions that leave the definition only minimally complete.

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% for the single 'fmt' parameter, so the description must compensate – and it partly does by enumerating the accepted values (csv, md) and explaining the practical difference. It does not state the default or whether other values are valid, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource pair ('Сохранить шорт-лист в файл' – save the shortlist to a file), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings such as shortlist_show. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: export the current shortlist when you need it as a file. The parenthetical '(открывается в Excel)' hints at when csv is preferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or reference to alternatives like shortlist_show.

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