article_export

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the export action but does not indicate whether it is read-only, how the markdown is returned (file, string, download), authentication needs, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 sentence that directly states the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded with no wasted words. While it misses behavioral details, it excels in economy and clarity for its length.

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 simple two-parameter tool, this description conveys the core function. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., inline markdown vs. attachment) and there is no output schema to compensate. It is sufficient for basic understanding but leaves ambiguity about the expected output.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters: id as '아티클 UUID' and include_meta with a default of true. The description adds no extra parameter context, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '아티클을 마크다운으로 내보냅니다' clearly states a specific verb (export), a resource (article), and the output format (markdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article and article_get, which likely return the article without format conversion.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use the export tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling tools. There are no explicit exclusions or mentions of alternative tools.

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