do_export

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output format (JSONL), the fact that a path is written (an implicit side effect), and a privacy gate requiring explicit confirmation. It says nothing about overwrite behavior, whether path is a file or directory, or what permissions are required for private points, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a write-side 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and the argument shape front-loaded before the conditional rule. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool that writes to a path with a privacy gate, the description should say whether an existing file is overwritten, what 'labelled rows' scopes to, and whether point_id accepts one id or many — none of which is covered by the opaque payload schema.

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 input schema is a single opaque 'payload' object with additionalProperties:true and 0% description coverage, so the schema documents nothing. The description compensates substantially by naming point_id and path as required and confirm as optional, plus the conditional rule that private points need confirm:true. It stops short of giving types or path format, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the output format: 'Export labelled rows as JSONL'. That is far more concrete than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling dm_export, so an agent cannot tell which one to pick from the description alone.

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?

Provides one real precondition — private points require confirm:true — which is genuine usage guidance. It gives no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions dm_export or do_extract, so the routing decision among 25 siblings is left entirely to inference.

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