export_opml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the export is of the 'full mindmap', implying no filtering. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The description is minimally adequate but lacks detail on what the agent can expect.

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 composed of two concise sentences that immediately state the action and format, then provide context about OPML and compatible apps. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 description explains the output format and its compatibility, but it does not specify how the output is returned (e.g., as a file, a string, or a download URL). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the result structure. It is mostly adequate for a simple tool but incomplete regarding the return type.

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 has zero parameters, and the description provides no additional parameter information because none is needed. Since the rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, this score reflects that the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 that the tool exports the full mindmap as OPML, and it lists compatible apps (MindNode, OmniOutliner, XMind). However, it does not differentiate this export from sibling tools like export_html, export_json, export_markdown, or export_mermaid, which limits clarity for selecting among them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that OPML is supported by specific apps, which indirectly suggests usage for import into those apps, but does not explicitly state usage scenarios or when to choose OPML over other export formats.

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