Export stories

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses output format details, especially the jira-csv column layout, but does not clarify whether export writes a file, returns a string, overwrites existing files, or requires permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence that starts with the core action and then efficiently explains each format. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with 67% schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly and understand the intended output formats. The remaining gap is the unspecified return/file-writing behavior.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's generic 'Output format' by explaining each enum value and its target use. It does not expand on the stories or epic parameters, which the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb, 'Formats,' a specific resource, 'finished stories,' and enumerates the three output formats. It clearly distinguishes export from sibling validation/splitting tools by focusing on formatting finished stories for external use.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts for each format: Markdown for docs or README, CSV for spreadsheets, and jira-csv for Jira's importer. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are validation/splitting rather than export alternatives.

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