export_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates the tool exports to a file and returns success status and path, which is transparent for a simple export. No contradictions, but could mention file overwrite behavior.

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?

Exceptionally concise with only two sentences and two argument lines. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema (implied), the description covers the essentials. Could mention that it exports the current score, but that may be inferred.

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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: it explains 'path' as file path and 'format' with allowed values. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is valuable, though an enum for format would be even clearer.

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 states the action (export) and the resource (score) along with the target formats (PDF or MusicXML), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like save_score.

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 implies when to use (when you need PDF or MusicXML output) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools like save_score suggest a difference, but no guidance is provided.

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