Export With Fidelity Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context by explaining what the fidelity report contains (markdown loss risk and unsupported AFFiNE-native content), going beyond the basic annotation signals and helping the agent understand the report's behavioral focus.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Export') and concisely conveys both the primary output (markdown) and the additional report. No words are wasted, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema covers return value details, so the description only needs to clarify the tool's purpose and report components. It does so effectively by naming 'markdown loss risk' and 'unsupported AFFiNE-native content.' The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly relate to export_doc_markdown or analyze_doc_fidelity, but the context is largely complete for a read-only combined export/report tool.

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 67% (docId and workspaceId have descriptions, includeFrontmatter does not). The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, leaving includeFrontmatter unexplained. Since coverage is moderate and the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description neither significantly helps nor hurts, so a baseline-adjacent score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and clearly states the dual output: document markdown and a structured fidelity report highlighting loss risk and unsupported AFFiNE-native content. This distinguishes it from sibling export_doc_markdown (just markdown) and analyze_doc_fidelity (presumably just analysis), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool versus export_doc_markdown or analyze_doc_fidelity. However, the combination of 'markdown' and 'fidelity report' implies that this tool is suitable when both outputs are needed, providing moderate implied guidance without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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