export_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is exported and the output format (JSON snapshot), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, size limitations, or whether sensitive data (e.g., credentials) is included. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states the use cases. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides value. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It identifies the resources exported and the output format, and gives common use cases. It could briefly mention the result or any limitations, but the information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter specifics because none exist, which is appropriate. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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' and the specific resources (workers, chains, chain steps, groups) with an explicit output format (JSON snapshot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workers or delete_all_workers by describing a distinct bulk export action.

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 explicitly identifies use cases: 'Use for backup or migration.' This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the export-all nature is distinct enough from list/delete operations to make misuse unlikely.

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