export_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: rendering process, mojibake normalization, and the publishing vs. return-only behavior for different scopes. However, it omits potential side effects like file overwriting or permission requirements.

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 concise yet informative, using structured bullet points to organize information efficiently. Every sentence adds value, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and outcomes well. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for the complexity.

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 only parameter, 'scope', is thoroughly explained in the description with three valid values and their corresponding effects. Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by detailing each option and its default.

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 tool renders knowledge to a human-readable markdown file, grouped by scope and project, with details per item. It distinguishes between scope='org' (publishes to repo) and other scopes (returns markdown without publishing), which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 defines when to use each scope value, including default behavior. It provides clear context for usage but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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