scheme_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether export is a pure read, whether it writes a file to disk or returns JSON inline, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like — the word 'export' is genuinely ambiguous between those readings.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing to trim, and the scope clarification is placed where it is immediately useful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the export actually returns (inline JSON string vs. file location vs. a job/status object), and it does not. With one optional parameter and no annotations, the definition is minimally viable but leaves the return contract undefined.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the MCP_SCHEME_ID environment fallback, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond restating the resource being exported.

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?

Specific verb 'Export' plus the resource 'scheme configuration', with a clarifying parenthetical that the payload is nodes and connections as JSON. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as scheme_get, scheme_get_swagger_json, or scheme_import, so it falls short of a 5.

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 indication of when to choose this over scheme_get (which likely also returns a scheme) or scheme_import (its natural counterpart). There is no mention of preconditions, side effects, or what happens when scheme_id is omitted beyond what the schema already states.

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