Export Document Markdown

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal export action; it does not mention what content is included/excluded, whether frontmatter is optional, or any side effects. It essentially restates the tool's name.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant content. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place with a clear statement of 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?

The tool is simple and has annotations plus an output schema, but the description lacks usage context and fails to differentiate from sibling export tools. It also leaves includeFrontmatter unexplained, making it only partially complete.

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 schema documents docId and workspaceId with descriptions, but includeFrontmatter has no description. The tool description provides zero parameter semantics and does not clarify the boolean's effect, leaving a gap in understanding the function.

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 verb (Export), resource (AFFiNE document content), and format (markdown). However, it does not distinguish from the similar sibling tool export_with_fidelity_report, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like export_with_fidelity_report or read_doc. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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