export_ideas_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful filter: only open and in-progress ideas are exported (excluding other statuses) and they are grouped. It omits permissions, output destination/size behavior, and ordering, so the behavioral picture is only partial for an export tool.

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. The scope qualifier and output format arrive immediately, and nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key scope and format decisions. It leaves minor gaps around which statuses are excluded, grouping order, and truncation behavior, but is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The phrase 'one project's' implies the project argument is a single project identifier, adding some meaning, but it does not clarify identifier format, whether name or ID is expected, or error behavior for unknown projects.

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?

States a specific verb (export), resource (ideas), output format (GitHub-style markdown), and scope (one project's open and in-progress ideas). This clearly separates it from data-returning siblings like list_ideas and search_ideas, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the format and scope: use it when you want a markdown document of active ideas rather than a structured listing. It never states when NOT to use it or contrasts it with list_ideas/search_ideas, so the agent must infer the routing.

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