project_export

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the output format (JSONL) but does not disclose side effects, resource consumption, or the number of files created. It adds some context beyond annotations but not enough.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, efficient. Every word contributes to the 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 simple schema and that an output schema exists, the description covers the exported resources and format. Minor gaps: no mention of whether multiple files or a single file, or any size constraints.

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%, so description must compensate. It does not describe the parameters (projectId, outputDirectory) beyond their names. Although the names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning.

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 tool exports project memories, candidates, tasks, symbols, relations, and a manifest as JSONL files. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like project_backup and project_archive.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., project_backup) or any prerequisites. The description implies usage but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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