post_profile_browsers_csv

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Export profiles' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies data, what permissions are required, what format the output takes (CSV is implied in the name but not confirmed), or any rate limits or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with mutation implications.

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 extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than representing efficient communication. The structure is simple but under-specified.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does, when to use it, what behavior to expect, or what the parameters mean. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is only 50% (one of two parameters has a description). The description 'Export profiles' adds no information about either parameter. It doesn't explain what 'browsersIds' represents, what format they should be in, or what 'currentWorkspace' is used for. The description fails to compensate for the schema's incomplete documentation.

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 'Export profiles' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'post_profile_browsers_csv' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'export' means in this context (CSV format? data structure?), what 'profiles' refers to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'post_profile_browser_import' or 'post_profile_clone_multi'.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools that handle profile operations like import, clone, and transfer, there's no indication whether this is for backup, migration, analysis, or other purposes. The agent receives no contextual cues about appropriate use cases.

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