review.export_markdown

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

The description discloses the primary side effect: it saves a file. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not mention whether the file is overwritten, where it is saved, or what the tool returns after saving. This is adequate but incomplete for a mutating 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could have included parameter details without bloating the description.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose but omits details like file destination, return value, and whether it overwrites existing files. The simple nature of the tool makes the description mostly complete, but these gaps prevent a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specific review_id', providing minimal meaning that the 'id' parameter refers to a review identifier, but it does not explicitly map 'review_id' to the schema property 'id' or explain any constraints beyond the schema. The compensation is insufficient for the gap.

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 action: converting a specific review_id to Markdown and saving it as a file. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like review.save or review.make_prompt, which could also involve saving or generating Markdown.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context on how it fits among sibling tools.

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