export_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is a 'read-only projection' (non-destructive to the store) but 'overwrites the file whole' (destructive to output). This is useful behavioral transparency, though it omits details like permission requirements or side effects on the store.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Regenerate DECISIONS.md') and adds essential qualifiers ('derived, read-only projection'; 'overwrites the file whole'). Slight use of dash and semicolon could be cleaner, but it remains concise.

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 description explains what the tool does but does not cover return values (no output schema), the role of 'project_dir', or how it compares to similar tools. Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the project.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description's mention of 'overwrites the file whole' adds minor context to the 'path' parameter, but overall does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool regenerates DECISIONS.md from the decisions store, using a specific verb ('Regenerate') and resource. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'export_snapshot', limiting clarity for an agent choosing between them.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_snapshot' or 'get_project_summary'. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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